Guideline On The Treatment of Acne

Guideline on the Treatment of Acne
Developed by the Guideline Subcommittee Acne of the

European Dermatology Forum
Subcommittee Members:
Dr. Alexander Nast, Berlin (Germany)
Prof. Dr. Brigitte Drno, Nantes (France)
Dr. Vincenzo Bettoli, Ferrara (Italy)
Prof. Dr. Klaus Degitz, Munich (Germany)
Mr. Ricardo Erdmann, Berlin (Germany)
Prof. Dr. Andrew Finlay, Cardiff (United Kingdom)
Prof. Dr. Ruta Ganceviciene, Vilnius (Lithuania)
Dr. Alison Layton, Harrogate (United Kingdom)
Dr. Jos Luis Lpez Estebaranz, Madrid (Spain)
Prof. Dr. med. Harald Gollnick, Magdeburg (Germany)
Dr. Cristina Oprica, Stockholm (Sweden)

Mrs. Stefanie Rosumeck, Berlin (Germany)
Prof. Dr. Berthold Rzany, Berlin (Germany)
Dr. Adel Sammain, Berlin (Germany)
Dr. Thierry Simonart, Brussels (Belgium)
Dr. Niels Kren Veien, Aalborg (Denmark)
Dr. Maja Vurnek ivkovi, Zagreb (Croatia)
Prof. Dr. Christos Zouboulis, Dessau (Germany)
Prof. Dr. Falk Ochsendorf, Frankfurt (Germany)
Members of EDF Guideline Committee:

Prof. Dr. Werner Aberer, Graz (Austria)
Prof. Dr. Martine Bagot, Paris (France)
Prof. Dr. Ulrike Blume-Peytavi, Berlin (Germany)
Prof. Dr. Lasse Braathen, Bern (Switzerland)
Prof. Dr. Sergio Chimenti, Rome (Italy)
Prof. Dr. Jos Luis Diaz-Perez, Bilbao (Spain)
Prof. Dr. Claudio Feliciani, Rome (Italy)
Prof. Dr. Claus Garbe, Tbingen (Germany)
Prof. Dr. Harald Gollnick, Magdeburg (Germany)
Prof. Dr. Gerd Gross, Rostock (Germany)
Prof. Dr. Vladimir Hegyi, Bratislava (Slovakia)
Prof. Dr. Michael Hertl, Marburg (Germany)
Prof. Dr. Lajos Kemny, Szeged (Hungary)
Prof. Dr. Robert Knobler, Wien (Austria)
Prof. Dr. Hans-Christian Korting, Munich (Germany)

Prof. Dr. Gilian Murphy, Dublin (Ireland)
Prof. Dr. Martino Neumann, Rotterdam (Netherlands)
Prof. Dr. Tony Ormerod, Aberdeen (UK)
Prof. Dr. Mauro Picardo, Rome (Italy)
Prof. Dr. Johannes Ring, Munich (Germany)
Prof. Dr. Annamari Ranki, Helsinki (Finland)
Prof. Dr. Berthold Rzany, Berlin (Germany)
Prof. Dr. Sonja Stnder, Mnster (Germany)
Prof. Dr. Eggert Stockfleth, Berlin (Germany)
Prof. Dr. Alain Taieb, Bordeaux (France)
Prof. Dr. Nikolai Tsankov, Sofia (Bulgaria)
Prof. Dr. Elke Weisshaar, Heidelberg (Germany)
Prof. Dr. Fenella Wojnarowska, Oxford (UK)
Chairman of EDF Guideline Committee:

Prof. Dr. Wolfram Sterry, Berlin (Germany)
Expiry date: 10/2014
EDF Guidelines Secretariat to Prof. Sterry:
Bettina Schulze, Klinik fr Dermatologie, Venerologie und Allergologie, Campus Charit Mitte,
Charit Universittsmedizin Berlin, Charitplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany
phone: ++49 30 450 518 062, fax: ++49 30 450 518 911, e-mail: bettina.schulze@charit.de
Conflicts of interests:
All authors completed the Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest of the
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which is available at the
dEBM and online (www.acne-guidelines.com).
EDF Guidelines Secretariat to Prof. Sterry:

Bettina Schulze, Klinik fr Dermatologie, Venerologie und Allergologie, Campus Charit Mitte,
Charit Universittsmedizin Berlin, Charitplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany
phone: ++49 30 450 518 062, fax: ++49 30 450 518 911, e-mail: bettina.schulze@charit.de
European evidence based (S3)
Guidelines for the treatment of acne

(ICD L70.0)
Final version 13/09/2011
Alexander Nast, Brigitte Drno, Vincenzo Bettoli, Klaus Degitz, Ricardo Erdmann, Andrew
Finlay, Ruta Ganceviciene, Merete Haedersdal, Alison Layton, Jose Luis Lopez Estebaranz,
Falk Ochsendorf, Cristina Oprica, Stefanie Rosumeck, Berthold Rzany, Adel Sammain,
Thierry Simonart, Niels Kren Veien, Maja Vurnek ivkovi, Christos C. Zouboulis, Harald
Gollnick
Table of contents
1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1
Notes on use of guidelines...................................................................................................... 5
1.2
Objectives of the guideline ...................................................................................................... 5
1.3
Target population .................................................................................................................... 6
1.4
Pharmacoeconomic considerations ........................................................................................ 6
1.5
Considerations with respect to vehicle for topical treatments................................................. 6
1.6
Considerations with respect to body area............................................................................... 6
1.7 Clinical features and variants .................................................................................................. 7

1.7.1 Comedonal acne............................................................................................................... 7
1.7.2 Papulopustular acne ......................................................................................................... 7
1.7.3 Nodular/ conglobate acne................................................................................................. 7
1.7.4 Other acne variants .......................................................................................................... 8
2
Assessment, comparability of treatment outcomes ................................................................. 9

2.1 Acne grading ........................................................................................................................... 9
2.1.1 Acne grading systems ...................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Prognostic factors that should influence treatment choice ................................................... 12
2.2.1 Prognostic factors of disease severity ............................................................................ 12
2.2.2 The influence of the assessment of scarring/ potential for scarring on disease
management................................................................................................................... 12
Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 13
3.1
Nomination of expert group/ patient involvement.................................................................. 13
3.2
Selection of included medications/ interventions .................................................................. 13
3.3 Generation of evidence for efficacy, safety and patient preference...................................... 13

3.3.1 Literature search and evaluation of trials........................................................................ 13
3.3.2 Extrapolation of evidence for specific acne types .......................................................... 14
3.3.3 Minimal clinically important difference in assessing the efficacy of two therapeutic
options for acne .............................................................................................................. 14
3.3.4 Qualitative assessment of evidence ............................................................................... 14
3.3.5 Peer review/ piloting ....................................................................................................... 16
3.3.6 Implementation, evaluation, updating............................................................................. 16
4
Epidemiology and pathophysiology ......................................................................................... 17

4.1
Epidemiology......................................................................................................................... 17
4.2
Pathophysiology .................................................................................................................... 17
Therapeutic options ................................................................................................................... 19

5.1
Summary of therapeutic recommendations .......................................................................... 19
Treatment of comedonal acne................................................................................................... 21

6.1
Recommendations for comedonal acne ............................................................................... 21
6.2 Reasoning ............................................................................................................................. 21

6.2.1 Efficacy ........................................................................................................................... 21
6.2.2 Tolerability/ safety........................................................................................................... 24
6.2.3 Patient preference/ practicability .................................................................................... 24
6.2.4 Other considerations....................................................................................................... 24
6.3
Summary ............................................................................................................................... 24
Treatment of papulopustular acne............................................................................................ 26

7.1 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 26
7.1.1 Mild to moderate papulopustular acne ........................................................................... 26
7.1.2 Severe papulopustular / moderate nodular acne ........................................................... 27
7.2 Reasoning ............................................................................................................................. 27
7.2.1 Efficacy ........................................................................................................................... 28
7.3
Summary ............................................................................................................................... 36
Treatment nodular/ conglobate acne........................................................................................ 37

8.1
Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 37
8.2 Reasoning ............................................................................................................................. 37

8.2.1 Efficacy ........................................................................................................................... 38
8.3
9
Summary ............................................................................................................................... 39
General considerations.............................................................................................................. 40
9.1 Choice of type of topical retinoid ........................................................................................... 40
9.1.1 Reasoning/ summary...................................................................................................... 40
9.2 Choice of type of systemic antibiotic ..................................................................................... 40
9.2.1 Reasoning....................................................................................................................... 40
9.2.2 Efficacy ........................................................................................................................... 40
9.2.6 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 41
9.3
Considerations on isotretinoin and dosage........................................................................... 41
9.4
Oral isotretinoin considerations with respect to EMEA directive........................................... 42
9.5
Consideration on isotretinoin and the risk of depression ...................................................... 43
9.6
Risk of antibiotic resistance................................................................................................... 43
10
Maintenance therapy .................................................................................................................. 45
11
References................................................................................................................................... 47
List of abbreviations
ADR
BPO
CY
EE-CM
EE-CPA
EE-DG
EE-DR
EE-LG
EE-NG
IL
IPL
LE
ne
NIL
NO
PDT
sys.
TL
top.
UV
vs.
adverse drug reaction

benzoylperoxid
cysts
ethinylestradiol and chlormadinon
ethinylestradiol and cyproteronacetate
ethinylestradiol and desogestrel
ethinylestradiol and drospirenone
ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel
ethinylestradiol and norgestimate
inflammatory lesions
intense pulsed light
level of evidence
no evidence
non-inflammatory lesions
nodule
photodynamic therapy
systemic
total lesion
topical
ultraviolet
versus
1 Introduction
Nast/ Rzany
1.1 Notes on use of guidelines

An evidence-based guideline has been defined as a systematically developed
statement that assists clinicians and patients in making decisions about appropriate
treatment for a specific condition [1]. A guideline will never encompass therapy
specifications for all medical decision-making situations. Deviation from the
recommendations may, therefore, be justified in specific situations.
This is not a textbook on acne, nor a complete, all-inclusive reference on all aspects
important to the treatment of acne. The presentation on safety in particular is limited
to the information available in the included clinical trials and does not represent all
the available and necessary information for the treatment of patients. Additional
consultation of specific sources of information on the particular intervention
prescribed (e.g. product information sheet) is necessary. Furthermore, all patients
should be informed about the specific risks associated with any given topical and/ or
systemic therapy.
Readers must carefully check the information in this guideline and determine whether
the recommendations contained therein (e.g. regarding dose, dosing regimens,
contraindications, or drug interactions) are complete, correct, and up-to-date. The
authors and publishers can take no responsibility for dosage or treatment decisions.
1.2 Objectives of the guideline

Improvement in the care of acne patients
The idea behind this guideline is that recommendations based on a systematic
review of the literature and a structured consensus process will improve the quality of
acne therapy in general. Personal experiences and traded therapy concepts should
be critically evaluated and replaced, if applicable, with the consented therapeutic
recommendations. In particular, a correct choice of therapy should be facilitated by
presenting the suitable therapy options in a therapy algorithm, taking into account the
type of acne and the severity of the disease.
Reduction of serious conditions and scarring
As a result of the detailed description of systemic therapies for patients with severe
acne, reservations about these interventions should be overcome to ensure that
patients receive the optimal therapy. With the timely introduction of sufficient
therapies, the development of serious post-acne conditions and severe scarring
should be reduced.
Promotion of adherence
Good therapeutic adherence is key to treatment success. Adherence is facilitated by
knowledge of the product being used, for example treatment duration, the expected
onset of effect, the sequence of the healing process, the maximal achievable
average effect, expected adverse events, and the benefit to quality of life.
Reduction of antibiotic resistance

The use of topical and systemic antibiotics should be optimized by using appropriate
combinations for a predefined duration, in order to reduce the development of
antibiotic resistance.
1.3 Target population

Health care professionals
This guideline has been developed to help health care professionals provide optimal
therapy to patients with mild, moderate or severe acne. The primary target groups
are dermatologists and other professionals involved in the treatment of acne, such as
paediatricians and general practitioners. The target group may vary with respect to
national differences in the distribution of services provided by specialists or general
practitioners.
Patients
The recommendations of the guideline refer to patients who suffer from acne. These
are mainly adolescents treated in outpatient clinics. The appropriate therapy option is
presented according to the type of acne that is present. The primary focus is the
induction therapy of facial acne (see Chapter 1.6). Non-primary target groups are
patients with special forms of acne, such as, occupational acne, chloracne, acne
aestivalis, acne neonatorum acne inverse (hidradenitis suppurativa).
1.4 Pharmacoeconomic considerations

European guidelines are intended for adaptation to national conditions. It is beyond
the scope of this guideline to take into consideration the specific costs and
reimbursement situations in every European country. Differences in prices,
reimbursement systems, willingness and ability to pay for medication among patients
and the availability of generics are too large. Therefore, pharmacoeconomic
considerations will have to be taken into account when guidelines are developed at
national and local levels.
The personal financial and health insurance situation of a patient may necessitate
amendments to the prioritisation of treatment recommendations. However, if financial
resources allow, the suggested ranking in the therapeutic algorithm should be
pursued.
1.5 Considerations with respect to vehicle for topical treatments

The skin type and stage of disease has to be taken into consideration when choosing
the vehicle for topical treatments. The efficacy and safety/ tolerability of topical
treatments are largely influenced by the choice of vehicle.
1.6 Considerations with respect to body area

The face is the primary region of interest for the treatment of acne. Appearance,
scarring, quality of life and social stigmatization are important considerations when
dealing with facial dermatological diseases.
The recommendations of this guideline apply primarily to the treatment of facial acne.
More widespread involvement will certainly favour earlier use of a systemic treatment
due to the efficacy and practicability of such treatments.
1.7 Clinical features and variants

Layton/ Finlay
Acne (synonym acne vulgaris) is a polymorphic, inflammatory skin disease most
commonly affecting the face (99 % of cases). Less frequently it also affects the back
(60 %) and chest (15 %) [2]. Seborrhoea is a frequent feature [3].
The clinical picture embraces a spectrum of signs, ranging from mild comedonal
acne, with or without sparse inflammatory lesions (IL), to aggressive fulminate
disease with deep-seated inflammation, nodules and in some cases associated
systemic symptoms.
1.7.1 Comedonal acne

Clinically non-inflamed lesions develop from the subclinical microcomedo which is
evident on histological examination early in acne development [2]. Non-inflamed
lesions encompass both open (blackheads) and closed comedones (whiteheads).
Comedones frequently have a mid-facial distribution in childhood and, when evident
early in the course of the disease, this pattern is indicative of poor prognosis [4].
Closed comedones are often inconspicuous with no visible follicular opening.
1.7.2 Papulopustular acne

Most patients have a mixture of non-inflammatory (NIL) and inflammatory lesions [5].
Inflammatory lesions arise from the microcomedo or from non-inflammatory clinically
apparent lesions and may be either superficial or deep [6]. Superficial inflammatory
lesions include papules and pustules (5 mm or less in diameter). These may evolve
into deep pustules or nodules in more severe disease. Inflammatory macules
represent regressing lesions that may persist for many weeks and contribute
markedly to the general inflammatory appearance [5].
1.7.3 Nodular/ conglobate acne

Small nodules are defined as firm, inflamed lesions > 5 mm diameter, painful by
palpation. Nodules are defined as larger than 5 mm, large nodules are > 1 cm in size.
They may extend deeply and over large areas, frequently resulting in painful lesions,
exudative sinus tracts and tissue destruction. Conglobate acne is a rare but severe
form of acne found most commonly in adult males with few or no systemic symptoms.
Lesions usually occur on the trunk and upper limbs and frequently extend to the
buttocks. In contrast to ordinary acne, facial lesions are less common. The condition
often presents in the second to third decade of life and may persist into the sixth
decade. Conglobate acne is characterized by multiple grouped comedones amidst
inflammatory papules, tender, suppurative nodules which commonly coalesce to form
sinus tracts. Extensive and disfiguring scarring is frequently a feature.
1.7.4 Other acne variants

There are several severe and unusual variants or complications of acne as well as
other similar diseases. These include acne fulminans, gram-negative folliculitis,
rosacea fulminans, vasculitis, mechanical acne, oil/ tar acne, chloracne, acne in
neonates and infants and late onset, persistent acne, sometimes associated with
genetic or iatrogenic endocrinopathies. The current guidelines do not lend
themselves to comprehensive management of all of these variants.
2 Assessment, comparability of treatment outcomes

Finlay/ Layton
2.1 Acne grading

Acne can be largely assessed from two perspectives: objective disease activity
(based on measurement of visible signs) and quality of life impact. There are other
aspects of measurement, such as sebum excretion rate, scarring development or
economic impact.
There are inherent difficulties in objectively measuring acne. Over 25 different
methods have been described [7] but there is no consensus as to which should be
used. Most methods are non-validated and consequently the results of separate trials
cannot be directly compared. There are detailed reviews on this subject by Barratt et
al. [8], Witkowski et al. [9], Thiboutot et al. [10], and Gollnick et al. [11].
Proper lighting, appropriate patient positioning and prior facial skin preparation
(gentle shaving for men, removal of make-up for women) are helpful in facilitating
accurate assessment. Palpation in addition to visual inspection may also help define
lesions more accurately.
2.1.1 Acne grading systems

2.1.1.1 Sign-based methods
Many methods for measuring acne have been described, ranging from global
assessments to lesion counting [7, 9]. Despite a range of methods being used to
measure acne in the 1960s and 1970s, it was the Leeds technique [12] that
dominated acne measurement for the next two decades. The Leeds technique
included two methods; the grading technique and the counting technique. The
grading technique allocated patients a grade from 0 to 10, with seven subgroups
between 0 and 2. Photographic guides illustrating each grade are given, but the
importance of also palpating lesions is stressed. The experience on which this
system was based stemmed from the pre-isotretinoin era, and acne of the severity
described by grades above 2 is now rarely seen. The counting technique involves the
direct counting of non-inflamed and inflamed lesions, including superficial papules
and pustules, deep inflamed lesions and macules. The revised Leeds acne grading
system [13] includes numerical grading systems for the back and chest as well as for
the face.
The Echelle de Cotation des Lesions dAcne (ECLA) or Acne Lesion Score Scale
system has demonstrated good reliability [14]. However, ECLA scores do not
correlate with quality of life scores and the use of both disease and quality of life
scores is suggested [15].
2.1.1.2 Global assessment techniques
Global assessment scales incorporate the entirety of the clinical presentation into a
single category of severity. Each category is defined by either a photographic
repertoire with corresponding numeric scale or descriptive text. Grading is a
subjective task, based on observing dominant lesions, evaluating the presence or

absence of inflammation, which is particularly difficult to capture, and estimating the
extent of involvement. Global methods are much more practically suited to clinical
practice. In clinical investigations, they should be combined with lesion counts as a
co-primary endpoint of efficacy [16]. A simple photographic standard-based grading
method using a 0-8 scale has been successfully employed in a number of clinical
trials [17].
In 2005, the US FDA proposed an IGA (investigator global assessment) that
represented a static quantitative evaluation of overall acne severity. To accomplish
this, they devised an ordinal scale with five severity grades, each defined by distinct
and clinically relevant morphological descriptions that they hoped would minimise
inter-observer variability. Indeed, the more detailed descriptive text has resulted in
this system being considered to provide even greater reliability than previous global
assessments [16].
A very simple classification of acne severity was described in the 2003 report from
the Global Alliance for better outcome of acne treatment [11]. This basic classification
was designed to be used in a routine clinic, and its purpose was to map treatment
advice onto common clinical presentations. For each acne descriptor a first-choice
therapy is advised, with alternatives for females and maintenance therapy. There are
five simple descriptors: mild comedonal, mild papulopustular, moderate
papulopustular, moderate nodular, and severe nodular/ conglobate. A series of eight
photographs span and overlap these five descriptors. Different facial views and
different magnifications are used, reducing the comparability of the images.
In order to give treatment recommendations based on disease activity, the EU
Guidelines group has considered how best to classify acne patients. It has used the
following simple clinical classification:
1. Comedonal acne
2. Mild - moderate papulopustular acne
3. Severe papulopustular acne, moderate nodular acne
4. Severe nodular acne, conglobate acne
Other already existing systems are very difficult to compare with one another. The
group has tried to map the existing systems to the guidelines clinical classification.
However, in many cases the systems do not include corresponding categories and
often it has to be considered an approximated narrowing rather than a precise
mapping (Table 1).
Publication
Comedonal
acne
Mild
moderate
papulopustular acne
Pillsbury 1956 [18]

Michaelsson 1977
[19]
1-4
0 - 30
10
Severe
papulopustula
r acne,
moderate
nodular acne
2-4
20 - 30
Severe
nodular acne,
conglobate
acne
2-4
20 - >30
Cook 1979 [17]

Wilson 1980 [20]
Allen 1982 [21]
Burke (Leeds)
1984 [5]
Pochi 1991 [16]
OBrien (Leeds)
1988 (face) [13]
Dreno 1999 [14]
0-1
0
0-2
0.5
2-4
2-4
2-6
0.75 - 2
6
6-8
6
2-3
8
8
8
3-8
Mild
1-3
Mild/ moderate
4-7
Moderate
8 - 10
F1R1 - 5
F1Is1 - 4
Lehmann 2002 [7]

Gollnick 2003 [11]
Mild
Mild
comedonal
Layton 2010 [22]

Tan 2007 [23]
Mild/ moderate
Mild papularpustular,
moderate
papularpustular
Mild
Mild: 0-5
papulespustules
F1Is4 - 5,
F1Ip 1 - 4
Severe
Moderate
nodular
Severe
11 - 12,
nodulocystic
F1Ip 4 - 5
FDAs IGA for

acne vulgaris
(2005) [24]
1 Almost clear:
rare NIL with
no more than
1 papule
2 Mild: some
NIL but no more
than a few
papule/ pustule
Moderate
Moderate: 6-20
papules pustules
3 Moderate:
many NIL,
some IL no
more than 1
nodul
4 Severe: up to
many
noninflammatory and inflammatory lesions,
but no more
than a few
nodular lesions
Severe
Severe nodular/
conglobate
Severe
Severe: 21- 50
papules pustules, Very
severe: >50 IL
Severe
-
Table 1 Comparison of different acne assessment scales. This is an attempt to approximately map the
various published acne classifications to the simple four group classification used in these guidelines.
2.1.1.3 Quality of life methods

Simpson and Cunliffe [25] consider the use of quality of life and psychosocial
questionnaires essential to adequately understanding just how the disease is
affecting the patient, and to better understand the progress of the disease. The
impact of acne on quality of life can be measured using general health measures,
dermatology-specific measures or acne-specific measures. In order for quality of life
measures to be used more frequently in the routine clinical work, they need to be
easy to use, the scores need to be meaningful, and they need to be readily
accessible. Clinicians must be convinced that the information gained from using them
is of benefit in guiding them to make optimum clinical decisions for their patients, and
they need to become aware that the use of these measures may help to justify their
clinical decisions. Quality of life measures can influence the choice of therapy. In
patients with a severe impact on their quality of life, a more aggressive therapy may
be justified.
11
2.2 Prognostic factors that should influence treatment choice

2.2.1 Prognostic factors of disease severity
A number of prognostic factors relating to more severe disease should be considered
when assessing and managing acne. These are outlined and evidenced in review
papers published by Holland and Jeremy 2005 [26] and Dreno et al. 2008 [27] and
include family history, course of inflammation, persistent or late-onset disease,
hyperseborrhoea, androgenic triggers, truncal acne and/ or psychological sequelae.
Previous infantile acne may also correlate with resurgence of acne at puberty and
early age of onset with mid-facial comedones, early and more severe seborrhoea
and earlier presentation relative to the menarche are all factors that should alert the
clinician to increased likelihood of more severe acne.
2.2.2 The influence of the assessment of scarring/ potential for scarring

on disease management
Scarring usually follows deep-seated inflammatory lesions, but may also occur as a
result of more superficial inflamed lesions in scar-prone patients. Acne scarring,
albeit mild, has been identified in up to 90 % of patients attending a dermatology
clinic [28]. Scars may show increased collagen (hypertrophic and keloid scars) or be
associated with collagen loss. The presence of scarring should support aggressive
management and therapy should be commenced early in the disease process.
12
3 Methods
(For further details please see the methods report at www.acne-guideline.com.)
Nast/ Rzany
3.1 Nomination of expert group/ patient involvement

All experts were officially nominated by the European Dermatology Forum (EDF) or
the European Academy of Dermatology and Venerology. They were selected
according to their clinical expertise, publication record and/ or experience in the field
of evidence-based medicine and guideline development. None of the experts
received any financial incentive other than reimbursement of travel costs.
Participation of patients was difficult to realise, since no patient organisation exists.
Attempts to invite patients currently treated by the involved experts did not succeed.
Patients were invited to participate in the external review. Patient preference was
considered as an important outcome and trials looking at patient preferences were
included.
3.2 Selection of included medications/ interventions

There is a vast array of treatment options available for acne. The options are further
extended by the availability of different vehicles and formulations. When choosing a
treatment, different skin types, ethnic groups and subtypes of acne must also be
considered.
The authors of this guideline selected the most relevant treatments in Europe to be
included in the guideline. The fact that a certain treatment was not selected as a topic
for this guideline, does not mean that it may not be a good treatment for acne.
Additional treatment options may be considered for a later update.
Fixed dose combinations were considered as long as they were licensed in a
European country (e. g. adapalene + benzoylperoxid (BPO), clindamycin + BPO,
erythromycin + tretinoin, erythromycin + isotretinoin, erythromycin + zinc).
Treatment options consisting of more than two topical components were not included
because of the likeliness of reduced patient adherence and/ or because of a
limitation in the feasibility of discussing all possible combinations and sequences.
3.3 Generation of evidence for efficacy, safety and patient

preference
3.3.1 Literature search and evaluation of trials
An extensive search of existing guidelines and systematic reviews was performed at
the beginning of the project. The search was performed in Medline, Embase, and
Cochrane (for search strategies see the methods report at www.acne-guideline.com).
The date of the systematic searches was March 10th 2010 for topical and systemic
interventions and April 13th 2010 for laser and light therapies. The results were
checked for the inclusion criteria and trial quality using a standardized literature
13
evaluation form. Existing systematic reviews (e. g. Cochrane) and other guidelines
served as an additional basis for the body of evidence in this guideline. Pooling of the
trials was not attempted due to the lack of common outcome measures and
endpoints and the unavailability of some primary data (for details of search
strategies, standardized evaluation form and references of included reviews see
methods report at www.acne-guideline.com).
3.3.2 Extrapolation of evidence for specific acne types

The aim of this guideline is to give recommendations for specific clinical conditions,
e.g. the severity of acne, and not to assess the different medications one by one
without respect to clinical stage. However, most trials did not look in detail at
subtypes but include patients with acne vulgaris in general. Therefore, for some
recommendations, indirect evidence was generated from looking at suitable
outcome parameters:
(1) The percentage reduction of non inflammatory lesions was the efficacy
parameter considered for comedonal acne.
(2) Efficacy in papulopustular acne was assessed by reduction in inflammatory
lesions, reduction in total lesion count and other acne grading scales.
(3) The generation of evidence for nodular/ conglobate acne was particularly difficult,
since very few trials included nodular/ conglobate acne. Consequently, treatment
recommendations also took into account indirect data from trials of severe
papulopustular acne.
The evidence from clinical trials almost always focuses on facial acne. Trials that
examined acne at other locations (e.g. back), were considered as indirect evidence
and the level of evidence was downgraded accordingly.
3.3.3 Minimal clinically important difference in assessing the efficacy of

two therapeutic options for acne
It would helpful to know the extent of reduction in the number of acne lesions
required for patients to consider that there has been a clinically important
improvement. We are not aware of any prospective study to date that addresses this
question.
Furthermore, there are no data defining the minimal clinically important difference
required to indicate greater efficacy of one treatment over another. The consensus
view of the authors of this guideline is that a treatment should achieve at least a 10%
greater reduction in the number of lesions to demonstrate superior efficacy. Hence,
for the evaluation of superior or comparable efficacy throughout the evidence
generation process, a 10% difference in efficacy (lesion reduction) was considered
relevant.
3.3.4 Qualitative assessment of evidence

Many different grading systems for assessing the quality of evidence are available in
the field of guideline development. For this guideline, the authors used the grading
14
system adopted for the European Psoriasis Guidelines with some adaptations taken
from the GRADE system [29, 30].
3.3.4.1 Grade of evidence (quality of individual trial)
The available literature was evaluated with respect to the methodological quality of
each single trial. A grade of evidence was given to every individual trial included:
A
Randomized, double-blind clinical trial of high quality (e.g. sample-size

calculation, flow chart of patient inclusion, intention-to-treat [ITT] analysis,
sufficient sample size)
Randomized clinical trial of lesser quality (e.g. only single-blind, limited sample
size: at least 15 patients per arm)
Comparative trial with severe methodological limitations (e.g. not blinded, very
small sample size, no randomization)
3.3.4.2 Level of evidence (quality of body of evidence to answer a specific

question)
When looking at a specific question (e.g. efficacy of BPO relative to adapalene) the
available evidence was summarized by aligning a level of evidence (LE) using the
following criteria:
1
Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the

estimate of effect.
At least two trials are available that were assigned a grade of evidence A and
the results are predominantly consistent with the results of additional grade B
or C studies.
Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence

in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
At least three trials are available that were assigned a grade of evidence B and
the results are predominantly consistent with respect to additional grade C
trials.
Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our

confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Conflicting evidence or limited amount of trials, mostly with a grade of evidence
of B or C.
Any estimate of effect is very uncertain.

Little or no systematic empirical evidence; included trials are extremely limited
in number and/ or quality.
3.3.4.3 Consensus process

All recommendations were agreed in a consensus conference of the authors using
formal consensus methodology (nominal group technique). The consensus
15
conference was moderated by Prof. Dr. med. Berthold Rzany MSc, who is a certified
moderator for the German Association of Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF). All
members of the author committee were entitled to vote in the consensus conference.
In general, a high consensus (>90 %) was aimed for. In the absence of a consensus,
this was noted in the text and reasons for the difference in views were given. All
consensus statements are highlighted in a grey box throughout the text.
In order to weight the different recommendations, the group assigned a strength of
recommendation grade (see box below). The strength of recommendation
considered all aspects of the treatment decision, such as efficacy, safety, patient
preference, and the reliability of the existing body of evidence (level of evidence).
Strength of recommendation
In order to grade the recommendation a standardized guidelines language was
used:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
is strongly recommended
can be recommended
can be considered
is not recommended
may not be used under any circumstances
a recommendation for or against treatment X cannot be made at the present time.
3.3.5 Peer review/ piloting

An extensive external review was performed. National dermatological societies
(European Dermatology Forum [EDF] members), other specialties (paediatrics,
gynaecologists, general practitioners as organized in the European Union of Medical
Specialists [UEMS]) and patients (patient internet platforms) were invited to
participate. Access was open and it was possible for anybody to comment via the
internet (using the platform www.crocodoc.com). The expert group piloted the
guidelines within their own practices and performed a trial implementation within their
clinics. (For further details see the methods report at www.acne-guideline.com.).
3.3.6 Implementation, evaluation, updating

Implementation will be pursued at a national level by local medical societies.
Materials such as a online version, a short version and a therapeutic algorithm will be
supplied.
Strategies for evaluation (e. g. assessment of awareness, treatment adhesion and
patient changes) are in preparation and will mostly be pursued at a national level.
Guidelines need to be continually updated to reflect the increasing amount of medical
information available. This guideline will not be valid after 31.12.2015. In case of
important changes in the meantime (e.g., new licensed drugs, withdrawal of drug
licensing, new important information) an update will be issued earlier. The guidelines
committee under the coordination of the division of evidence based medicine (dEBM)
will access the necessity for an update by means of a Delphi vote.
16
4 Epidemiology and pathophysiology

4.1 Epidemiology
Degitz/ Ochsendorf
Acne is one of the most frequent skin diseases. Epidemiological studies in Western
industrialized countries estimated the prevalence of acne in adolescents to be
between 50 % and 95 %, depending on the method of lesion counting. If mild
manifestations were excluded and only moderate or severe manifestations were
considered, the frequency was still 20 - 35 % [32-35]. Acne is a disease primarily of
adolescence. It is triggered in children by the initiation of androgen production by the
adrenal glands and gonads, and it usually subsides after the end of growth. However,
to some degree, acne may persist beyond adolescence in a significant proportion of
individuals, particularly women [36]. Even after the disease has ended, acne scars
and dyspigmentation are not uncommon permanent negative outcomes [10]. Genetic
factors have been recognised; there is a high concordance among identical twins
[37], and there is also a tendency towards severe acne in patients with a positive
family history for acne [38]. So far little is known about specific hereditary
mechanisms. It is probable that several genes are involved in predisposing an
individual to acne. These include the genes for cytochrome P450-1A1 and steroid21-hydroxylase [39]. Racial and ethnic factors may also contribute to differences in
the prevalence, severity, clinical presentation and sequelae of acne [40, 41].
Environmental factors also appear to be of relevance to the prevalence of acne;
populations with a natural lifestyle seem not to develop acne [42]. In particular, diet
has recently gained attention, with epidemiological [43] and investigative studies [44]
indicating a correlation between acne and Western diet.
4.2 Pathophysiology
Drno/ Gollnick
Acne is an androgen-dependent disorder of pilosebaceous follicles (or pilosebaceous
unit). There are four primary pathogenic factors, which interact to produce acne
lesions: 1) sebum production by the sebaceous gland, 2) alteration in the
keratinization process, 3) Propionibacterium acnes follicular colonization, and 4)
release of inflammatory mediators.
Patients with seborrhoea and acne have a significantly greater number of lobules per
gland compared with unaffected individuals (the so-called genetically prone
Anlage). Inflammatory responses occur prior to the hyperproliferation of
keratinocytes. Interleukin-1 up-regulation contributes to the development of
comedones independent of the colonization with P.acnes. A relative linoleic acid
deficiency has also been described.
Sebaceous lipids are regulated by peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors which
act in concert with retinoid X receptors to regulate epidermal growth and
differentiation as well as lipid metabolism. Sterol response element binding proteins
mediate the increase in sebaceous lipid formation induced by insulin-like growth
factor-1. Substance P receptors, neuropeptidases, -melanocyte stimulating
hormone, insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1R and corticotrophin-releasing hormone
17
(CRH)-R1 are also involved in regulating sebocyte activity as are the ectopeptidases,
such as dipeptidylpeptidase IV and animopeptidase N. The sebaceous gland also
acts as an endocrine organ in response to changes in androgens and other
hormones. Oxidized squalene can stimulate hyperproliferative behaviour of
keratinocytes, and lipoperoxides produce leukotriene B4, a powerful chemoattractant.
Acne produces chemotactic factors and promotes the synthesis of tumour necrosis
factor- and interleukin-1. Cytokine induction by P. acnes occurs through Toll-like
receptor 2 activation via activation of nuclear factor-B and activator protein 1 (AP-1)
transcription factor. Activation of AP-1 induces matrix metalloproteinase genes, the
products of which degrade and alter the dermal matrix.
The improved understanding of acne development on a molecular level suggests that
acne is a disease that involves both innate and adaptive immune systems and
inflammatory events.
18
5 Therapeutic options
5.1 Summary of therapeutic recommendations
*1,2
Recommendations are based on available evidence and expert consensus. Available

evidence and expert voting lead to classification of strength of recommendation.
High
strength of
recommendation
Medium
strength of
recommendation
Comedonal
acne
Mild-to-moderate
papulopustular acne
Adapalene + BPO (f.c.)

or
BPO + clindamycin
(f.c.)
Topical
retinoid *3
Azelaic acid
or
BPO
or
topical retinoid *3
or
systemic antibiotic *2 +
adapalene *10
Azelaic acid
or
BPO
Low
strength of
recommendation
*1
*2
*3
*4
*5
*6
Severe nodular/
conglobate acne *4
Isotretinoin *1
Isotretinoin *1
Systemic antibiotics *5
+ adapalene *10
or
systemic antibiotics *5
+ azelaic acid *8
or
systemic antibiotics +
adapalene + BPO
(f.c.)
+ azelaic acid
Blue light
or
oral zinc
or
topical erythromycin +
isotretinoin (f.c.)
or
topical erythromycin +
tretinoin (f.c.)
or
systemic antibiotic *2,5
+ BPO *7
or
systemic antibiotic *2,5
+ azelaic acid *10
or
systemic antibiotics *2,5
+ adapalene + BPO
(f.c.) *9
+ BPO*7
+ BPO *7
or
+ adapalene *9,10
or
+ adapalene + BPO
(f.c.) *9
Hormonal
antiandrogens +
topical treatment
or
hormonal
antiandrogens +
Hormonal
antiandrogens +
Alternatives
for females
-
Severe
papulopustular/
moderate nodular
acne
limitations can apply that may necessitate the use of a treatment with a lower strength of recommendation as
a first line therapy (e.g. financial resources/ reimbursement limitations, legal restrictions, availability, drug
licensing)
in case of more widespread disease/ moderate severity, initiation of a systemic treatment can be
recommended
adapalene to be preferred over tretinoin/ isotretinoin (see Chapter 9.1)
systemic treatment with corticosteroids can be considered
doxycycline and lymecycline (see Chapter 9.2)
low strength of recommendation
19
*7
indirect evidence from a study also including chorhexidin, recommendation additionally based on expert
opinion
*8
indirect evidence from nodular and conglobate acne and expert opinion
*9
indirect evidence from severe papularpustular acne
*10
only studies found on systemic AB + adapalene, Isotretinoin and tretinoin can be considered for combination
treatment based on expert opinion
f.c. fixed combination
20
6 Treatment of comedonal acne

6.1 Recommendations for comedonal acne*1
High strength of recommendation
None
Medium strength of recommendation
Topical retinoids *2 can be recommended for the treatment of comedonal acne.
Low strength of recommendation
BPO can be considered for the treatment of comedonal acne.
Azelaic acid can be considered for the treatment of comedonal acne.
Negative recommendation
Topical antibiotics are not recommended for the treatment of comedonal acne.
Hormonal antiandrogens, systemic antibiotics and/ or systemic isotretinoin are not
recommended for the treatment of comedonal acne.
Artificial ultraviolet (UV) radiation is not recommended for the treatment of
comedonal acne.
Open recommendation
A recommendation for or against treatment of comedonal acne with visible light as
monotherapy, lasers with visible wavelengths and lasers with infrared wavelengths,
with intense pulsed light (IPL) and photodynamic therapy (PDT) cannot be made at
the present time.
*1
*2
a first line therapy (e. g. financial resources/ reimbursement limitations, legal restrictions, availability, drug
licensing)
adapalene (see chapter 9.1)
6.2 Reasoning
General comment: Only one trial looks specifically at patients with comedonal acne.
As a source of indirect evidence, trials including patients with papulopustular acne
were used and the percentage in the reduction of non-inflammatory lesions was
considered as the relevant outcome parameter. Because of the general lack of direct
evidence for the treatment of comedonal acne, the strength of recommendation was
downgraded for all considered treatment options, starting with medium strength of
recommendation as a maximum.
Choice of topical versus systemic treatment
Due to the usually mild-to-moderate severity of comedonal acne, a topical therapy is
generally recommended.
6.2.1 Efficacy
Superior efficacy was defined as a difference of 10% in the reduction of non
inflammatory lesions in head-to-head comparisons (see also Chapter 3.3.3.).
21
6.2.1.1 Topical monotherapy versus placebo

Superior efficacy against NIL compared with placebo is demonstrated by: azelaic
acid [45-47] (LE 1), BPO [48-60] (LE 1), and the topical retinoids [49-51, 60-75] (LE
1) (Table 2).
Among the topical antibiotics, clindamycin [57, 58, 72, 76-79] (LE 1) and tetracycline
[80, 81] (LE 1) show superior efficacy against NIL compared with placebo. Topical
erythromycin [59, 66, 82-85] (LE 1) shows only a trend towards superior efficacy
against NIL compared with placebo (Table 3).
6.2.1.2 Topical monotherapy versus topical monotherapy
The efficacy of adapalene and isotretinoin on NIL is comparable to the efficacy of
BPO (adapalene [50, 51, 60, 86-88] LE 1, isotretinoin [49] LE 3; Table 2).
Tretinoin shows a trend for comparable-to-superior efficacy on NIL compared with
BPO [89-91] LE 4; Table 2) and superior efficacy compared with azelaic acid (LE 4).
BPO shows superior efficacy on NIL compared with topical antibiotics (clindamycin
[54-58, 92, 93] LE 1, tetracycline [94] LE 3, erythromycin [59] LE 4; Table 3).
BPO shows superior efficacy against NIL compared with azelaic acid [86, 95] (LE 3),
although there is some conflicting evidence (Table 2).
There are very little data comparing the efficacy of adapalene, topical isotretinoin or
topical antibiotics with azelaic acid [45, 86, 95] (no evidence or LE 4, Table 2 and
Table 3).
More evidence is available for a comparison of tretinoin and clindamycin, and shows
comparable-to-superior efficacy for tretinoin [72, 96] (LE3). The evidence also shows
erythromycin to have comparable efficacy to isotretinoin [66] (LE 3, Table 3).
Study results on the comparative efficacies of the topical retinoids against NIL are
partly conflicting. The efficacy of adapalene against NIL is comparable, if not
superior, to the efficacy of tretinoin [97-106] (LE 1). Isotretinoin, however, shows
comparable efficacy to adapalene [107] (LE 4), and superior efficacy compared with
tretinoin [108] (LE 4, Table 2).
Efficacy: Comedonal acne - top. therapy vs. top. therapy
Placebo/
Azelaic
Adapalene Isotretinoin
BPO
vehicle (v)
acid (aa)
(a)
(i)
BPO
BPO > v
LE 1
Azelaic acid
(aa)
Adapalene
(a)
Isotretinoin
(i)
Tretinoin (t)
aa > v
LE 1
a>v
LE 1
i>v
LE 1
i>v
BPO > aa
LE 3
BPO = a
LE 1
BPO = i
LE 3
t BPO
BPO > aa
LE 3
BPO = a
LE 1
BPO = i
LE 3
aa = a
LE 4
ne
aa = a
LE 4
a=i
LE 4
ne
t > aa
22
a=i
LE 4
at
X
i>t
Tretinoin
(t)
t BPO
LE 4
t > aa
LE 4
at
LE 1
i>t
LE 4
X
LE 1
LE 4
LE 4
LE 1
LE 4
Table 2 Efficacy: Comedonal acne - topical therapy vs. topical therapy

ne=no evidence; top=topical
Efficacy: Comedonal acne - antibiotics versus (vs.) placebo/ BPO/ azelaic acid/
top. retinoids
Placebo/
Azelaic
Adapalene Isotretinoin Tretinoin
BPO
vehicle (v)
acid (aa)
(a)
(i)
(t)
Clindamycin
c>v
BPO c
aa > c
tc
ne
ne
(c)
LE 1
LE 1
LE 4
LE 3
Erythromycin
ev
BPO > e
e=i
ne
ne
ne
(e)
LE 1
LE 4
LE 3
Nadifloxacin
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
(n)
Tetracycline
t>v
BPO > t
ne
ne
ne
ne
(t)
LE 1
LE 3
Table 3 Efficacy: Comedonal acne - antibiotics vs. placebo/ BPO/ azelaic acid/ top. retinoids
6.2.1.3 Topical combination therapies

The combination of BPO and clindamycin shows comparable efficacy against NIL to
monotherapy with BPO [54-58, 93, 109-112] (LE 1) and superior efficacy compared
with clindamycin monotherapy [54-58, 93, 110] (LE 1, Table 4).
The combination of BPO and adapalene shows a comparable-to-superior efficacy
compared with BPO [50, 51, 60, 88] (LE 3) or adapalene alone [50, 51, 60, 88] (LE 3,
Table 4).
Erythromycin plus isotretinoin shows comparable efficacy to both erythromycin [66]
(LE 3) and isotretinoin alone [66] (LE 3, Table 4).
There were no trials comparing the efficacy of the fixed combination of tretinoin and
erythromycin against its components.
The combination of BPO and clindamycin and the combination of BPO and
adapalene have comparable efficacy against NIL [113] (LE 4, Table 4).
Since this trial was published after the deadline of literature search, it was not
officially included in the assessment, and since the safety/ tolerability profile was
inferior, the guidelines group did not deem it necessary to update the guideline and to
change its conclusions [114, 115].
Efficacy: Comedonal acne - top. combination therapy vs. top. therapy/ combinations
Clindamycin-BPO
(c-BPO)
ClindaErythro- AdapaClindaAdapaleIsotretiTretinoin
mycin
BPO
mycin
lene
mycin-BPO ne-BPO
noin (i)
(t)
(c)
(e)
(a)
(c-BPO)
(a-BPO)
c-BPO =
a = cc-BPO
c-BPO =
ne
ne
ne
X
BPO
BPO
>c
a-BPO
LE 1
LE 4
LE 1
LE 4
23
AdapaleneBPO (aBPO)
Isotretinoinerythromycin
(ie)
Tretinoinerythromycin
(te)
a-BPO
>/=
BPO
LE 3
ne
a-BPO
>/= a
LE 3
ne
ne
ne
c-BPO = aBPO
LE 4
ne
ie = e
LE 3
ne
ie = i
LE 3
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
Table 4 Efficacy: Comedonal acne - top. combination therapy vs. top. therapy/ combinations
6.2.1.4 Laser and light sources

Although there are some studies of the treatment of NIL with laser and light sources,
the published evidence is still very scarce. A standardized treatment protocol and
widespread clinical experience are still lacking.
6.2.2 Tolerability/ safety

Only one trial looked specifically at comedonal acne. It showed a superior safety/
tolerability profile for azelaic acid compared with tretinoin (LE 4) [45].
As a source of further indirect evidence, trials in patients with papulopustular acne
were considered to evaluate the safety and tolerability profile of the included
treatments. For a summary of the data, see Chapter 7.2.2 Tolerability/ safety.
6.2.3 Patient preference/ practicability

There is only indirect evidence from trials in patients with papulopustular acne that
shows a preference among the topical retinoids for adapalene [116, 117].
6.2.4 Other considerations

Animal experiments, in the rhino mouse model in particular, have shown for decades
that retinoids have a strong anti-comedonal efficacy. Clinical trials on the
microcomedo, the natural precursor of comedones, have shown that retinoids
significantly reduce microcomedo counts. In addition, in vitro data provide
pathophysiological support for the use of topical retinoids for comedonal acne [118,
119].
6.3 Summary
No high strength recommendation was given because of the general lack of direct
evidence for the treatment of comedonal acne.
Due to the generally mild-to-moderate severity of comedonal acne, a topical therapy
is recommended.
The best efficacy was found for azelaic acid, BPO and topical retinoids.
24
The use of a fixed-dose combination of BPO + clindamycin does not lead to a

clinically relevant increase in the efficacy against NIL.
The fixed dose combination of BPO + adapalene shows a trend towards better
efficacy against NIL when compared to its components as a monotherapy. However,
there is also a trend towards inferiority with respect to the tolerability profile.
The tolerability of topical retinoids and BPO is comparable; there is a trend towards
azelaic acid having a better tolerability/ safety profile.
Few, and only indirect, data on patient preference are available. They indicate patient
preference for adapalene over other topical retinoids.
Additional pathophysiological considerations favour the use of topical retinoids.
There is a lack of standard protocols, experience and clinical trials for the treatment
of comedonal acne with laser and light sources.
25
7 Treatment of papulopustular acne

7.1 Recommendations
7.1.1 Mild to moderate papulopustular acne
*1

The fixed-dose combination adapalene and BPO is strongly recommended for the
treatment of mild to moderate papulopustular acne.
The fixed-dose combination clindamycin and BPO is strongly recommended for the
treatment of mild to moderate papulopustular acne *2.
Azelaic acid can be recommended for the treatment of mild to moderate
BPO can be recommended for the treatment of mild to moderate papulopustular
acne.
Topical retinoids can be recommended for the treatment of mild to moderate
papulopustular acne *3.
In case of more widespread disease, a combination of a systemic antibiotic with
adapalene can be recommended for the treatment of moderate papulopustular.
Blue light monotherapy can be considered for the treatment of mild to moderate
The fixed-dose combination of erythromycin and tretinoin can be considered for the
The fixed-dose combination of isotretinoin and erythromycin can be considered for
the treatment of mild to moderate papulopustular acne.
Oral zinc can be considered for the treatment of mild to moderate papulopustular
acne.
In case of more widespread disease, a combination of a systemic antibiotic with
either BPO or with adapalene in fixed combination with BPO can be considered for
the treatment of moderate papulopustular.
Topical antibiotics as monotherapy are not recommended for the treatment of mild
to moderate papulopustular acne.
Treatment of mild to moderate papulopustular acne with artificial UV radiation is not
recommended for the treatment of mild to moderate papulopustular acne.
The fixed-dose combination of erythromycin and zinc is not recommended for the
Systemic therapy with anti-androgens, antibiotics, and/ or isotretinoin is not
recommended for the treatment of mild to moderate papulopustular acne.
Open recommendation
Due to a lack of sufficient evidence, it is currently not possible to make a
recommendation for or against treatment with red light, IPL, Laser or PDT in the
*1
a first line therapy (e. g. financial resources/ reimbursement limit, legal restrictions, availability, drug licensing)
26
*2
3
*
limited to a treatment period of 3 months

adapalene (see Chapter 9.1)
*1
7.1.2 Severe papulopustular / moderate nodular acne

Oral isotretinoin monotherapy is strongly recommended for the treatment of severe
Systemic antibiotics can be recommended for the treatment of severe
papulopustular acne in combination with adapalene *5, with the fixed dose
combination of adapalene/ BPO or in combination with azelaic acid *2,3.
Oral anti-androgens in combination with oral antibiotics can be considered for the
treatment of severe papulopustular acne *2,4.
Oral anti-androgens in combination with topical treatment can be considered for the
treatment of severe papulopustular acne *4.
Systemic antibiotics in combination with BPO can be considered for the treatment of
severe papulopustular/ moderate nodular acne.
Single or combined topical monotherapy is not recommended for the treatment of
severe papulopustular acne.
Oral antibiotics as monotherapy are not recommended for the treatment of severe
Oral anti-androgens as monotherapy are not recommended for the treatment of
severe papulopustular acne.
Visible light as monotherapy is not recommended for the treatment of severe
Artificial UV radiation sources is not recommended as a treatment of severe
Open recommendation
recommendation for or against treatment with IPL and laser in severe
Although PDT is effective in the treatment of severe papularpustular/ moderate
nodular acne, it cannot yet be recommended due to a lack of standard treatment
regimens that ensure a favourable profile of acute adverse reaction.
*1
*2
*3
4
*
*5
a first line therapy (e. g. financial resources/ reimbursement limit, legal restrictions, availability, drug licensing)
doxycycline or lymecycline, limited to a treatment period of 3 months
adapalene (see Chapter 9.1)
hormonal anti-androgens for females
only studies found on systemic AB + adaplene, Isotretinoin and tretinoin can be considered for combination
treatment based on expert opinion
7.2 Reasoning
Choice of topical versus systemic treatment
27
There are limited data comparing topical treatments with systemic treatments. Most
of the available trials compare topical treatment with systemic treatment plus
antibiotics. The general impression of a systemic treatment being more effective than
a topical treatment could not be confirmed from the included trials. When looking at
all comparisons between any topical therapy and systemic antibiotic treatments, five
trials showed superiority of topical treatment, ten showed comparable efficacy and
only three showed superior efficacy of systemic treatment.
Because of the risk of the development of antibiotic resistance, topical monotherapy
with antibiotics is generally not recommended. Issues of practicability between topical
and systemic treatments must also be taken into consideration in cases of severe,
and often widespread, disease.
The consensus within the expert group was that most cases of severe papulopustular
acne or moderate nodular acne, will achieve better efficacy when a systemic
treatment is used. In addition, better adherence and patient satisfaction is
anticipated. Efficacy can be further enhanced by adding a topical therapy (see
below).
7.2.1 Efficacy
Superior efficacy was defined as a difference of 10 in head-to-head comparisons
(see also Chapter 3.3.3.).
7.2.1.1 Topical monotherapy versus placebo
Superior efficacy against IL, compared with placebo, is observed with topical
antibiotics (erythromycin [59, 66, 82-85, 120-125] LE 1, clindamycin [58, 72, 76-79,
126-133] LE 1, tetracycline [80, 81, 134] LE 1, nadifloxacin [135] LE 4), azelaic acid
[45-47] (LE 1), BPO [48-56, 58-60, 136-140] (LE 1) and topical retinoids (adapalene
[50, 51, 60-64] LE 1, isotretinoin [49, 65, 66, 141] LE 1, tretinoin [67-75, 133, 142,
143] LE 1).
7.2.1.2 Topical monotherapy versus topical monotherapy
The efficacy of azelaic acid against inflammatory lesions is comparable to the
efficacy of BPO [86, 95, 144] (LE 2, Table 5).
The efficacy of adapalene against IL is comparable to the efficacy of azelaic acid [86]
(LE 4); there are no trials comparing isotretinoin or tretinoin with azelaic acid (Table
5).
The efficacy of BPO is comparable to the efficacy of adapalene [50, 51, 60, 86-88]
(LE 2); there is conflicting evidence for BPO compared with tretinoin [89-91, 145] (LE
4) and there is one trial indicating superior efficacy of BPO over isotretinoin [49] (LE
3, Table 5).
The efficacy of adapalene is comparable to the efficacy of tretinoin [97-106, 146] (LE
2) and isotretinoin [107] (LE 4). The efficacy of tretinoin is comparable to efficacy of
isotretinoin [108] (LE 4).
28
Monotherapy with topical antibiotics is not recommended due to the risk of

antibacterial resistance, and so is not further considered within this section; please
see tables for individual trial results.
Efficacy: Papulopustular acne - top. therapy vs. top. therapy
Placebo/
Azelaic acid Adapalene Isotretinoin Tretinoin
BPO
vehicle (v)
(aa)
(a)
(i)
(t)
BPO > v
BPO = aa
BPO = a
BPO > i
conflicting
BPO
X
LE 4
LE 1
LE 2
LE 2
LE 3
Azelaic
aa > v
BPO = aa
aa = a
X
ne
ne
acid (aa)
LE 1
LE 2
LE 4
Adapalene
a>v
BPO = a
aa = a
i=a
a=t
X
(a)
LE 1
LE 2
LE 4
LE 4
LE 2
Isotretinoin
i>v
BPO > i
i=a
i=t
ne
X
(i)
LE 1
LE 3
LE 4
LE 4
Tretinoin
t>v
conflicting
a=t
i=t
ne
X
LE 1
LE 4
LE 2
LE 4
(t)
Table 5 Efficacy: Papulopustular acne - top. therapy vs. top. therapy
7.2.1.3 Topical monotherapy versus topical fixed-combinations (BPO/

clindamycin, BPO/ adapalene, tretinoin/ isotretinoin, erythromycin/
zinc)
The combination of adapalene and BPO against IL shows superior efficacy
compared with adapalene alone [50, 51, 60, 88] (LE 1) and has comparable-tosuperior efficacy compared with BPO alone [50, 51, 60, 88] (LE 3, Table 6).
The combination of clindamycin and BPO shows superior efficacy against IL
compared with BPO alone [54-56, 58, 93, 109, 111, 112, 136, 147] (LE 1) or
clindamycin alone [54-56, 58, 93, 136, 147] (LE 1, Table 6).
The combination of adapalene and BPO against IL shows comparable efficacy to the
combination of clindamycin and BPO [113] (LE 4, Table 6).
The combination of erythromycin and isotretinoin against IL shows a superior efficacy
compared with isotretinoin alone [66] (LE 3) and is comparable to erythromycin alone
[66] (LE 3, Table 6).
There were no trials comparing the combination of erythromycin and tretinoin to its
individual components.
There is insufficient evidence for the additional benefit of adding topical zinc to topical
erythromycin. [148, 149] (LE 3, Table 6).
29
Efficacy: Papulopustular acne - top. combination therapy vs. top. therapy/ combinations
BPO
ClindamycinBPO (cBPO)
AdapaleneBPO (aBPO)
(ie)
(te)
Zincerythromycin
(ze)
c-BPO >
BPO
LE 1
a-BPO
>/= BPO
LE 3
Erythro- Adapalene
mycin (e)
(a)
Isotretinoin
(i)
Clindamycin (c)
Tretinoin
(t)
ne
c-BPO > c
LE 1
ne
ne
c-BPO > a
LE 4
ne
a-BPO > a
LE 1
ne
ne
ne
c-BPO = aBPO
LE 4
ne
ie = e
LE 3
ne
ie > i
LE 3
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
conflicting
LE 4
ne
ne
ze > c
LE 4
ne
ne
Table 6 Efficacy: Papulopustular acne - top. combination therapy vs. top. therapy/ combinations
ne=no evidence, top=topical
7.2.1.4 Topical monotherapy versus systemic monotherapy

There are no trials comparing topical retinoids with systemic treatments.
Systemic treatment is generally considered to be more efficacious than a topical
treatment, however this could not be confirmed from the included trials. Of all
comparisons between any topical therapy and systemic antibiotic treatments, three
trials showed superiority of topical monotherapy [150-152], ten showed comparable
efficacy [80, 127, 128, 153-159] and only three showed superior efficacy for systemic
therapy [81, 160, 161] (Table 7). However, the definition of acne severity grades,
inclusion criteria and trial methodology were not always comparable.
Efficacy: Papulopustular acne - top. therapy vs. sys. therapy
Sys. isotretinoin/
clindamycin/
Sys. tetracycline (st) Minocycline (m) Doxycycline (d)
erythromycin/
lymecycline
BPO = m
d > BPO
BPO
ne
ne
LE 3
LE 4
Azelaic acid
st >/= aa
ne
ne
ne
(aa)
LE 3
c = st
c >/= m
Clindamycin (c)
ne
ne
LE 1
LE 3
Erythromycin+
ez > st
ez > m
ne
ne
zinc (ez)
LE 3
LE 4
Erythromycin
e > st
ne
ne
ne
(e)
LE 3
Top.
st >/= tt
ne
ne
ne
tetracycline (tt)
LE 3
30
Table 7 Efficacy: Papulopustular acne - top. therapy vs. sys. therapy

ne=no evidence; sys.=systemic; top=topical
Evidence would suggest that efficacy is not increased by switching from a topical
treatment to a systemic antibiotic treatment. Instead, a topical-systemic combination
treatment should be considered.
7.2.1.5 Systemic monotherapy versus combination of topical therapy and
systemic therapy
All included trials combining a topical treatment with a systemic antibiotic treatment
showed at least a trend towards increased efficacy with combination therapy.
The combination of systemic doxycycline with topical adapalene showed a trend
towards superior efficacy compared with doxycycline alone [162] (LE 4). Adapalene
combined with BPO and systemic doxycycline showed superior efficacy compared
with doxycycline alone [115] (LE 3, Table 8).
The combination of lymecycline and adapalene shows superior efficacy compared
with lymecycline monotherapy [163] (LE 4, Table 8).
7.2.1.6 Systemic monotherapy versus other systemic monotherapy
There are no trials comparing systemic isotretinoin and monotherapy with systemic
antibiotics.
Systemic isotretinoin shows a comparable efficacy against IL to minocycline plus
azelaic acid [164] (LE 4). However, isotretinoin showed a more rapid onset of action
(Table 8).
Systemic isotretinoin shows superior efficacy compared with tetracycline plus
adapalene [165] (LE 4, Table 8).
Minocycline [166] (LE 3) and tetracycline [167] (LE 3) both show superior efficacy
compared with zinc.
Efficacy: Papulopustular acne - sys. therapy vs. sys. monotherapy/ sys.-top.
combination
Sys.
Clindamycin
Sys.
Lymecycline Doxycycline
isotretinoin (si)
(c)
tetracycline (st)
(l)
(d)
Doxycycline+ top.
d-a = d
ne
ne
ne
ne
adapalene (d-a)
LE 4
Doxycycline + top.
d-a-BPO > d
ne
ne
ne
ne
adapalene + BPO
LE 3
(d-a-BPO)
Minocycline +
m-aa = si
ne
ne
ne
ne
azelaic acid (mLE 4
aa)
Sys. tetracycline +
st-tt > st
top. tetracycline
ne
ne
ne
ne
LE 4
(st-tt)
31
Tetracycline + top.
adapalene (t-ta)
Lymecycline +
adapalene (l-a)
si > t-ta
LE 4
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
l-a > l
LE 4
ne
Table 8 Efficacy: Papulopustular acne - sys. therapy vs. sys. monotherapy/ sys.-top. combination
From the available data, it is very difficult to draw conclusions on the differences in
efficacy between the anti-androgens.
Ethinylestradiol and cyproteronacetate (EE-CPA) shows superior efficacy compared
with ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel (EE-LG) [168-170] (LE 2).
EE-CPA shows comparable efficacy to ethinylestradiol and desogestrel (EE-DG)
[171-174] (LE 4).
Ethinylestradiol and chlormadinon (EE-CM) shows superior efficacy compared with
EE-LG [175] (LE 4).
Ethinylestradiol and drospirenone (EE-DR) shows
ethinylestradiol and norgestimate (EE-NG) [176] (LE 3).
comparable
efficacy
to
EE-DG shows comparable efficacy to EE-LG [177-179] (LE 3). This, however, can be
influenced by the dosage used.
The evidence comparing oral contraceptives with systemic antibiotic therapy is
scarce and conflicting: minocycline shows comparable efficacy to EE-CPA [180] (LE
4), whereas EE-CPA shows superior efficacy compared with tetracycline [181] (LE
3). Combining EE-CPA and tetracycline shows no superior efficacy compared with
EE-CPA alone [181] (LE 3, Table 9).
Efficacy: Papulopustular acne - contraceptives versus systemic antibiotic
Tetracycline (t)
Lymecycline (l)
Minocycline (m)
EE-CPA > t
EE-CPA = m
EE-CPA
ne
LE 3
LE 4
EE-CPA +
EE-CPA + t > t
ne
ne
tetracycline
LE 3
Table 9 Efficacy: Papulopustular acne - contraceptives versus systemic antibiotic
ne=no evidence

Blue light has superior efficacy against IL/ total lesion (TL) compared with placebo
[182, 183] (LE 3).
There is conflicting evidence regarding the efficacy of red light compared with
placebo.
There is insufficient evidence regarding the efficacy of all other light and laser
interventions compared with placebo.
32
A standardized treatment protocol and widespread clinical experience are still

lacking.

To determine whether a safety and tolerability profile was superior, the number of
drop-outs due to adverse events and the frequency and relevance and severity of the
side effects were taken into consideration. In addition, an individual global
assessment was performed.
7.2.2.1 Topical monotherapy
The data on azelaic acid (15% or 20%) show a trend towards a superior tolerability/
safety profile compared with BPO (5%) [86, 95, 144] (LE 3), topical adapalene [86]
(LE 4) and tretinoin [45] (LE 4). There is no evidence for a comparison with
isotretinoin (Table 10).
BPO has a comparable tolerability/ safety profile to topical retinoids (adapalene [50,
51, 86-88] LE 4, isotretinoin [49] LE 4, and tretinoin [89-91, 145] LE 4). Lower
concentrations of BPO show a trend towards a better tolerability/ safety profile (Table
10).
Among the topical retinoids, adapalene (LE 4) shows the best tolerability/ safety
profile followed by isotretinoin (LE 4) and tretinoin (LE 4) (Table 10).
Safety/ tolerability: Papulopustular acne
Azelaic acid
BPO
Adapalene (a)
Isotretinoin (i)
(aa)
aa > BPO
BPO = a
BPO = i
BPO
X
LE 3
LE 4
LE 4
Azelaic acid aa > BPO
aa > a
X
ne
(aa)
LE 3
LE 4
Adapalene
BPO = a
aa > a
a>i
X
(a)
LE 4
LE 4
LE 4
Isotretinoin
BPO = i
a>i
ne
X
(i)
LE 4
LE 4
BPO = t
aa > t
a>t
i>t
Tretinoin (t)
LE 4
LE 4
LE 4
LE 4
Tretinoin (t)
BPO = t
LE 4
aa > t
LE 4
a>t
LE 4
i>t
EL 4
X
Table 10 Safety/ tolerability: Papulopustular acne

ne=no evidence
Data on the safety and tolerabilities of combination therapies with topical antibiotics
are not described, since topical antibiotics are not recommended as monotherapy.
7.2.2.2 Topical combination therapies
The combination of BPO and clindamycin shows a similar tolerability/ safety profile
during the treatment of IL compared to monotherapy with BPO [54-56, 58, 93, 109,
111, 112, 136, 147] (LE 1) and an inferior profile to monotherapy with clindamycin
alone (LE 3, Table 11).
33
BPO alone shows a superior safety/ tolerability profile compared with a combination
of BPO and adapalene [50, 51, 88] (LE 3), whereas adapalene has a comparable-tosuperior safety/ tolerability profile [50, 51, 88] (LE 4, Table 11).
The combination of erythromycin and isotretinoin shows a similar tolerability/ safety
profile to erythromycin or isotretinoin alone [66] (LE 4, Table 11).
The combination of BPO and clindamycin shows a superior safety/ tolerability profile
compared with the combination of BPO and adapalene [113] (LE 4).
Topical treatments usually result in local side effects whereas systemic treatments
cause, among others, mostly gastrointestinal effects. It is therefore difficult to
accurately compare topical and systemic treatments in terms of safety/ tolerability.
In trials comparing topical and systemic treatments drop-out rates due to drug-related
adverse events are higher in the topical treatment groups than in the systemic
treatment groups (top. 24 patients vs. syst. 11 patients/ 11 trials [127, 128, 151-154,
157-160, 184, 185], assuming a similar distribution of patients in systemic and topical
arms). In six of the trials no information on drop-outs was provided [80, 81, 150, 155,
156, 161].
No reasonable conclusion seems justified with the available evidence, however, no
immediate superiority of either systemic or topical treatment is apparent.
Safety/ tolerability: Papulopustular acne - top. combinations vs. monotherapy or
combination therapy
BPO
AdapaleneBPO (aBPO)
(ie)
(ie)
Zinc-Erythromycin (ze)
c-BPO
= BPO
LE 1
BPO >
a-BPO
LE 3
ErythroClindamycinAdapalene Isotretinoin Clindamycin Tretinoin

mycin
BPO (c(a)
(i)
(c)
(t)
(e)
BPO)
ne
c-BPO > a
LE 4
ne
c > c-BPO
LE 3
ne
ne
a >/= aBPO
LE 4
ne
ne
ne
c-BPO > aBPO

LE 4
ne
ie = e
LE 4
ne
ie = i
LE 4
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
e > ze
LE 4
ne
ne
ze = c
LE 4
ne
ne
Table 11 Safety/ tolerability: Papulopustular acne - top. combinations vs. monotherapy or combination
therapy
ne=no evidence; top.=topical
34
7.2.2.4 Systemic antibiotics versus systemic antibiotics

From the included trials, no clear conclusion can be drawn as to which antibiotic
treatment has the best safety/ tolerability profile.
Smith and Leyden [186] performed a systemic review analyzing case reports on
adverse events with minocycline and doxycycline between 1966 and 2003. As a
result, they suggest that adverse events may be less likely with doxycycline than with
minocycline. More severe adverse events seem to appear during treatments with
minocycline. Doxycycline however, leads to photosensitivity, which is not seen with
minocycline.
The 2003 Cochrane review from Garner et al. [187] provided no further clear
evidence on the safety profile of minocycline and doxycycline and underlines the
ongoing debate and need for further evidence.
See also Chapter 9.2 Choice of type of systemic antibiotic.
Treatment with anti-androgens
From the included trials, no clear comparison of the safety/ tolerability profiles of antiandrogens with other systemic treatments can be made. An assessment to compare
the safety profile of the different anti-androgens is out of the scope of these
guidelines. For the use of anti-androgens, relevant safety aspects such as the risk of
thrombosis have to be considered.
Systemic treatments with isotretinoin
From the included trials, no clear comparison of the safety/ tolerability profiles of
isotretinoin with other systemic treatments can be made. (For a discussion of
isotretinoin depression, see Chapter 9.5.)
Safety/ tolerability: Papulopustular acne - sys. therapy vs. sys. monotherapy/ sys.-top.
combination
Sys. iso- Clindamycin
Sys.
Lymecycline Doxycycline
tretinoin (si)
(c)
tetracycline (st)
(l)
(d)
Doxycycline + top.
d-a = d
ne
ne
ne
ne
adapalene (d-a)
LE 4
Doxycycline + top.
d-a-BPO = d
ne
ne
ne
ne
adapalene + BPO
LE 4
(d-a-BPO)
Minocycline +
m-aa > si
ne
ne
ne
ne
azelaic acid (mLE 4
aa)
Sys. tetracycline +
st-tt = st
top. tetracycline
ne
ne
ne
ne
LE 4
(st-tt)
Tetracycline + top.
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
adapalene (t-ta)
Lymecycline +
l > l-a
ne
ne
ne
ne
adapalene (l-a)
LE 4
Table 12 Safety/ tolerability: Papulopustular acne - sys. therapy vs. sys. monotherapy/ sys.-top.
combination
ne=no evidence; sys.=systemic; top.=topical
35

Split-face trials show a patient preference for adapalene over tretinoin [188, 189] (LE
3).

For further discussion on the use of isotretinoin as a first-line treatment for severe
papulopustular acne, see Chapter 9.3.
The expert group feels strongly that the effectiveness seen in clinical practice is
highest with systemic isotretinoin, although this can only be partly supported by
published evidence. However, the dose response rates, the relapse rates after
treatment and the pharmacoeconomic calculations strongly favour systemic
isotretinoin.
7.3 Summary
The best efficacy against IL was found to be achieved with the fixed dose
combinations of BPO plus adapalene and BPO plus clindamycin, when compared
with topical monotherapies.
Monotherapy with azelaic acid, BPO or topical retinoids all showed comparable
efficacy when compared with each other.
Systemic monotherapy with antibiotics shows no superiority to topical treatments,
therefore combining systemic therapy with a topical agent should always be
preferred.
For severe cases, a systemic treatment with isotretinoin is recommended based on
the very good efficacy seen in clinical practice.
The available evidence on safety and tolerability is extremely scarce and was
considered insufficient to be used as a primary basis to formulate treatment
recommendations.
The lack of standardized protocols, experience and clinical trial data mean there is
insufficient evidence to recommend the treatment of papulopustular acne with laser
and light sources other than blue light.
36
8 Treatment nodular/ conglobate acne

8.1 Recommendations *1,2
Oral isotretinoin is strongly recommended as a monotherapy for the treatment of
conglobate acne.
Systemic antibiotics can be recommended for the treatment of conglobate acne in
combination with azelaic acid.
Oral anti-androgens in combination with oral antibiotics can be considered for the
treatment of conglobate acne *3,4.
Systemic antibiotics in combination with adapalene, BPO or the adapalene-BPO
fixed dose combination can be considered for the treatment of nodular/ conglobate
acne.
Topical monotherapy is not recommended for the treatment of conglobate acne.
Oral antibiotics are not recommended as monotherapy for the treatment of
conglobate acne.
Oral anti-androgens are not recommended as monotherapy for the treatment of
conglobate acne.
Artificial UV radiation sources are not recommended for the treatment of conglobate
acne.
Visible light as monotherapy is not recommended for the treatment of conglobate
acne.
Open recommendation
recommendation for or against treatment with IPL, or laser in conglobate acne.
Although PDT is effective in the treatment of moderate nodular/ conglobate acne, it
cannot yet be recommended due to a lack of standard treatment regimens that
ensure a favourable profile of acute adverse reaction.
1
*2
*3
*4
a first line therapy (e.g. financial resources/ reimbursement limit, legal restrictions, availability, drug licensing)
expert opinion: For the initial treatment phase with isotretinoin a combination with oral corticosteroids
treatment can be considered in conglobate acne.
doxycycline or lymecycline limited to a treatment period of 3 months
hormonal anti-androgens for females
8.2 Reasoning
General comment: Very few of the included trials (described below) looked
specifically at patients with nodular or conglobate acne.
As a source of indirect evidence, studies of patients with severe papulopustular acne
were used and the percentage in the reduction of nodules (NO) and cysts (CY) in
37
these studies was used. In case of use of such indirect evidence, the strength of
recommendation was downgraded for the considered treatment options.
8.2.1 Efficacy
Superior efficacy was defined as a difference of 10 in head-to-head comparisons
(see also Chapter 3.3.3).
8.2.1.1 Systemic monotherapy versus placebo
Systemic isotretinoin has superior efficacy compared with placebo [190] (LE 4*).
*
There is only one trial comparing systemic isotretinoin with placebo in nodular/ conglobate acne resulting only
in LE 4. However, there are multiple trials comparing different dosage without a placebo group and following
expert opinion, there is no doubt about its superior efficacy.

Systemic treatment with tetracycline has superior efficacy against noduls/ cycsts
(NO/ CY) compared with topical clindamycin [153] (LE 3).
Systemic treatment with tetracycline has a comparable efficacy against NO/ CY to
azelaic acid [155] (LE 3).
8.2.1.3 Systemic monotherapy versus systemic monotherapy
There are eight trials comparing different dosage regimens of systemic isotretinoin.
Most of these used 0.5 mg/kg bodyweight as one comparator. With this dosage, the
mean reduction of NO/ CY was around 70 % [191-198].
Systemic isotretinoin shows superior efficacy against NO/ CY compared with
systemic minocycline [199] (LE 4) or systemic tetracycline [200] (LE 3, Table 13).
Systemic isotretinoin shows comparable efficacy to systemic minocycline combined
with topical azelaic acid [164] (LE 4, Table 13).
Systemic isotretinoin shows comparable efficacy against deep IL (indirect evidence)
to systemic tetracycline in combination with topical adapalene [165] (LE 4).
The addition of topical clindamycin and topical adapalene to systemic isotretinoin
does not provide superior efficacy compared with isotretinoin monotherapy [201] (LE
4, Table 13).
Efficacy: nodular/ conglobate acne
Sys. tetracycline (st)
st > tc
Top. clindamycin (tc)
LE 3
aa = st
Azelaic acid (aa)
LE 3
Sys. minocycline (sm)
ne
Sys. tetracycline (st)
ne
38
Sys. isotretinoin (si)

ne
ne
si > sm
LE 4
si > st
LE 3
Azelaic acid + minocycline (aa-m)
ne
Tetracycline + adapalene (t-a)
ne
Isotretinoin + clindamycin +
adapalene (i-c-a)
ne
si = aa-m
LE 4
si = t-a
LE 4
si = i-c-a
LE 4
Table 13 Efficacy: Nodular/ conglobate acne


Due to there being insufficient evidence, it is not currently possible to make a
recommendation for or against treatment with IPL, laser or PDT in conglobate acne.

See also Chapter 7.2.2 on the tolerability/ safety of papulopustular acne treatments.
From the trials specifically investigating conglobate acne, very little information is
available to compare the different treatment options. Almost all patients suffer from
xerosis and cheilitis during treatment with isotretinoin, whereas systemic antibiotics
more commonly cause gastrointestinal adverse events (LE 4).

There is no evidence on the treatment preferences of patients suffering from
conglobate acne.

For comment on EMEA directive see also Chapter 9.3.
8.3 Summary
Systemic isotretinoin shows superior/ comparable efficacy in the treatment of
conglobate acne compared with systemic antibiotics in combination with topical
treatments. The expert group considers that greatest effectiveness in the treatment of
conglobate acne in clinical practice is seen with systemic isotretinoin, although this
can only be partly supported by published evidence, because of the lack of clinical
trials in conglobate acne.
In the experts opinion, safety concerns with isotretinoin are manageable if treatment
is properly initiated and monitored. Patient benefit with respect to treatment effect,
improvement in quality of life and avoidance of scarring outweigh the side effects.
There are insufficient data on the efficacy of other treatment options for conglobate
acne.
There is a lack of standard protocols, experience and clinical trial data for the
treatment of papulopustular acne with laser and light sources other than blue light.
39
9 General considerations
9.1 Choice of type of topical retinoid
Adapalene should be selected in preference to tretinoin and isotretinoin.
9.1.1 Reasoning/ summary

All topical retinoids show comparable efficacy against IL (see Chapter 7.2.1.2),
whereas against NIL the evidence is conflicting (see Chapter 6.2.1.2).
Among the topical retinoids, adapalene shows the best tolerability/ safety profile
followed by isotretinoin and tretinoin (see Chapter 7.2.2).
Patient preference favours adapalene over tretinoin (see Chapter 7.2.3).
9.2 Choice of type of systemic antibiotic

Doxycycline and lymecycline should be selected in preference to minocycline and
tetracycline.
9.2.1 Reasoning
General comment: In addition to the literature included in the guidelines, the
Cochrane review on the efficacy and safety of minocycline [187] and the systematic
review by Simonart et al. [202] were taken into consideration.
9.2.2 Efficacy
Doxycycline, lymecycline, minocycline and tetracycline all seem to have a
comparable efficacy against IL (see Chapter 7.2.2.4).
There is a trend towards comparable-to-superior efficacy for tetracycline compared
with clindamycin [203, 204] and erythromycin [205-207] (LE 4).

From the included trials, no clear results can be drawn as to which antibiotic
treatment has the best safety/ tolerability profile.
The 2003 Cochrane review from Garner et al. [187] provides no further clear
evidence on the safety profiles of minocycline and doxycycline. The review showed
no significant difference in the number of drop-outs due to adverse events when
comparing minocycline with doxycycline, lymecycline or tetracycline. Overall, an
adverse drug reaction (ADR) was experienced by 11.1% of the 1230 patients
receiving minocycline, 13.1% of the 415 patients receiving tetracycline or
oxytetracycline and 6.1% of the 177 patients receiving doxycycline.
Two analyses of reported ADRs have shown lower incidence rates and lower severity
of ADRs with doxycycline compared with minocycline [186, 208].
40
The most frequent ADRs for doxycycline are manageable (sun protection for
photosensitivity and water intake for oesophagitis), whereas the most relevant side
effects of monocycline (hypersensitivity, hepatic dysfunction, lupus like syndrome)
are not easily managed [209].
The phototoxicity of doxycycline is dependent on dosage and the amount of sun light
[210, 211].
There is little information on the frequency of ADRs with lymecycline. Its phototoxicity
has been reported to be lower than with doxycycline and its safety profile is
comparable to that of tetracycline [209, 212].

Doxycycline, lymecycline and minocycline have superior practicability compared with
tetracycline due to their requirement for less frequent administration. The Cochrane
review by Garner et al. included one trial showing a patient preference for
minocycline over tetracycline [187].

The use of systemic clindamycin for the treatment of acne is generally not
recommended as this treatment option should be kept for severe infections.
9.2.6 Summary
The efficacies of doxycycline, lymecycline, minocycline, and tetracycline are
comparable.
Tetracycline has a lower practicability and patient preference compared with
doxycycline, lymecycline and minocycline.
More severe drug reactions are experienced during treatment with minocycline
compared with doxycycline, lymecycline and tetracycline.
9.3 Considerations on isotretinoin and dosage

The evidence on the best dosage, including cumulative dosage, is rare and partly
conflicting. In most trials, higher dosages have lead to better response rates whilst
having less favourable safety/ tolerability profiles. Attempts to determine the
cumulative dose necessary to obtain an optimal treatment response and low relapse
rate have not yet yielded sufficient evidence for a strong recommendation. The
following recommendation is based more on expert opinion, than on existing
published trials.
For severe papulopustular acne/ moderate nodular acne, a dosage of systemic
isotretinoin of 0.3 - 0.5 mg/kg can be recommended.
For conglobate acne a dosage of systemic isotretinoin of 0.5 mg/kg can be
recommended.
The duration of the therapy should be at least 6 months.
In case of insufficient response, the treatment period can be prolonged.
41
9.4 Oral isotretinoin considerations with respect to EMEA

directive
Bettoli/ Layton/ Ochsendorf
The current European Directive for prescribing oral isotretinoin differs from the
recommendations given in this guideline with respect to indication.
The EU directive states: oral isotretinoin should only be used in severe acne,
nodular and conglobate acne, that has or is not responding to appropriate antibiotics
and topical therapy [213]. The inference of this being that it should now not be used
at all as first-line therapy.
After almost three decades of experience with oral isotretinoin, the published data
and opinion of many experts, including the authors of the EU Acne Guidelines,
support systemic isotretinoin being considered as the first-choice treatment for
severe papulopustular, moderate nodular, and severe nodular/ conglobate acne [11,
214-216]. Acne treatment guidelines written some years ago pointed out that oral
isotretinoin should be used sooner rather than later [217]. It is well known that a
quick reduction of inflammation in acne may prevent the occurrence of clinical and
psychological scarring and also significantly improves quality of life and reduces the
risk of depression [218, 219]. Delaying the use of oral isotretinoin, which the group
considers to be the most effective treatment for severe acne, poses a significant
ethical problem. Although comparative trials are missing, clinical experience confirms
that the relapse rates after treatment with isotretinoin are the lowest among all the
available therapies.
Unfortunately the European Directive, although not supported by convincing
evidence-based data, reach a different conclusion. Theoretically, in EU countries
clinicians are free to prescribe drugs, such as oral isotretinoin, according to their
professional experience. However, in the event of any medical problems, they could
be deemed liable if they have failed to follow recommended prescribing practice
[220].
For many reasons, systemic isotretinoin must be considered the first-choice
treatment for severe acne: clinical effectiveness, prevention of scarring and quick
improvement of a patients quality of life.
The EMEA recommendations include the following points:
1) To start at the dosage of 0.5 mg/kg daily.
2) Not recommended for patients under 12 years of age.
3) To monitor laboratory parameters, primarily liver enzymes and lipids, before
treatment, 1 month after starting and every 3 months thereafter.
4) To avoid laser treatment, peeling and wax epilation for at least 6 months after
stopping therapy.
42
The European Guideline group agrees with these recommendations of the EMEA,
although expert opinion suggests that being less than 12 years old (point 2) does not
necessarily contraindicate the use of isotretinoin and we did not identify any evidence
to support the avoidance of wax epilation and peeling for at least 6 months after
isotretinoin treatment (point 4) [220].
9.5 Consideration on isotretinoin and the risk of depression

Nast
A systematic literature search to investigate the risk of depression during treatment
with isotretinoin was not conducted. To specifically assess this issue at an evidencebased level, the data presented in the included trials were supplemented with the
systematic review by Marqueling et al. [221]. They reported that rates of depression
among isotretinoin users ranged from 1 % to 11 % across trials, with similar rates in
oral antibiotic control groups. Overall, trials comparing depression before and after
treatment did not show a statistically significant increase in depression diagnoses or
depressive symptoms. Some, in fact, demonstrated a trend toward fewer or less
severe depressive symptoms after isotretinoin therapy. This decrease was
particularly evident in patients with pre-treatment scores in the moderate or clinical
depression range. No correlation between isotretinoin use and suicidal behaviour
was reported, although only one retrospective trial presented data on this topic. The
current literature does not support a causative association between isotretinoin use
and depression; however there are important limitations to many of the trials. The
available data on suicidal behaviour during isotretinoin treatment are insufficient to
establish a meaningful causative association. Prior symptoms of depression should
be part of the medical history of any patient before the initiation of isotretinoin and
during the course of the treatment. Patients should be informed about a possible risk
of depression and suicidal behaviour.
9.6 Risk of antibiotic resistance

Simonart/ Ochsendorf/ Oprica
The first relevant changes in P. acnes antibiotic sensitivity were found in the USA
shortly after the introduction of the topical formulations of erythromycin and
clindamycin. The molecular basis of resistance, via mutations in genes encoding 23S
and 16S rRNA, are widely distributed [222]. However, the development of strains with
still unidentified mutations suggests that new mechanisms of resistance are evolving
in P. acnes [222]. Combined resistance to clindamycin and erythromycin is much
more common (highest prevalence 91 % in Spain) than resistance to the
tetracyclines (highest prevalence 26 % in the UK) [223]. Use of topical antibiotics can
lead to resistance largely confined to the skin of treated sites, whereas oral
antibiotics can lead to resistance in commensal flora at all body sites [224].
Resistance is more common in patients with moderate-to-severe acne and in
countries with high outpatient antibiotic sales [225]. Resistance is disseminated
primarily by person-to-person contact, and so the spread of resistant strains by the
treating physicians and by family and friends occurs frequently [10, 222, 223].
Although some data suggest that resistant isolates disappear after antibiotic
treatment is stopped [226], other data suggest that resistance persists and can be
reactivated rapidly [227].
43
There has been an increasing number of reports of systemic infections caused by

resistant P. acnes in non-acne patients, e. g. post-surgery [225]. In addition, a
transmission of factors conferring resistance to bacteria other than P. acnes is
described [82, 228]. Although antibiotic use in acne patients has been shown to be
associated with an increased risk of upper respiratory tract infection, the true clinical
importance of these findings requires further investigation.
It has been argued that the most likely effect of resistance is to reduce the clinical
efficacy of antibiotic-based treatment regimens to a level below that which would
occur in patients with fully susceptible flora [223, 229]. Some trials have suggested a
clear association between P. acnes resistance to the appropriate antibiotic and poor
therapeutic response [223, 229]. There is a gradual decrease in the efficacy of topical
erythromycin in clinical trials of therapeutic intervention for acne, which is probably
related to the development of antibiotic-resistant propionibacteria [230]. In contrast,
there is so far no evidence that the efficacy of oral tetracycline or topical clindamycin
has decreased in the last decades [165, 202, 230].
Studies on P. acnes resistance have highlighted the need for treatment guidelines to
restrict the use of antibiotics in order to limit the emergence of resistant strains. As a
consequence, the use of systemic antibiotics should be limited (both indication and
duration) and topical antibiotic monotherapy should be avoided. Other
recommendations include stricter cross-infection control measures when assessing
acne in the clinic and combining any topical/ systemic antibiotic therapy with broadspectrum antibacterial agents, such as BPO [10, 27, 223].
44
10 Maintenance therapy
Drno/ Gollnick
This chapter is based on expert opinion and a narrative literature review only. These
recommendations were not generated by systematic literature search with formalised
consensus conference.
Acne lesions typically recur for years, and so acne is nowadays considered to be a
chronic disease [12]. It has been shown that microcomedones significantly decrease
during therapy but rebound almost immediately after discontinuation of a topical
retinoid. Hence, the strategy for treating acne today includes an induction phase
followed by a maintenance phase, and is further supported by adjunctive treatments
and/ or cosmetic treatments. Therefore, a maintenance therapy to reduce the
potential for recurrence of visible lesions should be considered as a part of routine
acne treatment. However, it is important to emphasize the lack of definitions
surrounding the topic. One possible definition is: Maintenance therapy can be
defined as the regular use of appropriate therapeutic agents to ensure that acne
remains in remission.
Since 1973 it has clearly been shown that, after a controlled intervention phase with
oral antibiotic and topical tretinoin, patients continuing to receive the topical retinoid
in an controlled maintenance phase experience a significantly lower relapse rate
[231].
Several controlled trials have now been performed with topical retinoids to show the
value of maintenance treatment, with a topical retinoid decreasing the number and
preventing the development of microcomedones in different severity grades of acne.
To date, adapalene regimens have been most extensively studied as maintenance
treatments for acne in four controlled trials (one on micro comedones) and two
uncontrolled trials.
One clinical trial evaluating tazarotene and one involving maintenance treatment with
tretinoin after oral tetracycline and tretinoin topical treatment have also been
published. In all except one trial (Bettoli et al. [232] after oral isotretinoin therapy),
topical retinoid monotherapy was been evaluated after an initial 12 weeks of
combination therapy comprising a topical retinoid plus an oral or topical antibiotic.
The majority of trials has lasted 3 - 4 months (up to 12 months) and shows a
significant trend towards continuing improvement with topical retinoid maintenance
therapy and relapse when patients stop treatment. This suggests that a longer
duration of maintenance therapy is likely to be beneficial.
Two open studies with long-term use of adapalene have been conducted [233, 234],
providing additional evidence supporting the concept of maintenance therapy [235].
Topical azelaic acid is an alternative to topical retinoids for acne maintenance
therapy. Its efficacy and favourable safety profile are advantageous for long-term
therapy [236].
45
In order to minimize antibiotic resistance, long-term therapy with antibiotics is not

recommended as an alternative to topical retinoids. If an antimicrobial effect is
desired, the addition of BPO to topical retinoid therapy is preferred.
In future studies, it would be useful to present data on the proportion of patients who
were able to maintain a defined level of improvement (e. g., 50 % from baseline).
Other issues that should be addressed include creating a standardized definition of
successful maintenance, determining the most appropriate patient populations for
maintenance therapy, and identifying the ideal length of observation of patients.
For a successful long-term treatment, any acne maintenance therapy must be
tolerable, appropriate for the patients lifestyle, and convenient. The natural history of
acne suggests that maintenance therapy should continue over a period of months to
years depending upon the patients age. Ongoing research will help to define the
optimal duration of therapy and, perhaps, refine patient selection. Some patients with
significant inflammation may need to be treated with a combination of topical retinoid
and antimicrobial agents. This should be further studied.
Education about the pathophysiology of acne can enhance patient adherence to
maintenance therapy. However, the psychosocial benefits of clearer skin may be the
most compelling reason for consistent maintenance therapy. Finally, it may also be
helpful to explain to patients that acne is often a chronic disease that requires acute
and maintenance therapy for sustained remission.
46
11 References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
Field M, Lohr KN. Institute of Medicine Committee to Advise the Public Health Service on Clinical
Practice Guidelines. Clinical practice guidelines: directions for a new program. Washington, D.C.
National Academy Press. 1990.
Cunliffe WJ. The acnes. London. Martin Dunitz Ltd. 1989.
Cunliffe WJ, Shuster S. Pathogenesis of acne. Lancet. 1969;1; 685-687.
Lucky AW, Biro FM, Huster GA, Leach AD, Morrison JA, Ratterman J. Acne vulgaris in
premenarchal girls. An early sign of puberty associated with rising levels of
dehydroepiandrosterone. Arch Dermatol. 1994;130; 308-314.
Burke BM, Cunliffe WJ. The assessment of acne vulgaris--the Leeds technique. Br J Dermatol.
1984;111; 83-92.
Orentreich N, Durr NP. The natural evolution of comedones into inflammatory papules and
pustules. J Invest Dermatol. 1974;62; 316-320.
Lehmann HP, Robinson KA, Andrews JS, Holloway V, Goodman SN. Acne therapy: a
methodologic review. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;47; 231-240.
Barratt H, Hamilton F, Car J, Lyons C, Layton A, Majeed A. Outcome measures in acne vulgaris:
systematic review. Br J Dermatol. 2009;160; 132-136.
Witkowski JA, Parish LC. The assessment of acne: an evaluation of grading and lesion counting
in the measurement of acne. Clin Dermatol. 2004;22; 394-397.
Thiboutot D, Gollnick H, Bettoli V, Dreno B, Kang S, Leyden JJ, et al. New insights into the
management of acne: an update from the Global Alliance to Improve Outcomes in Acne group. J
Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;60; S1-50.
Gollnick H, Cunliffe WJ, Berson D, Dreno B, Finlay AY, Leyden JJ, et al. Management of acne: a
report from a Global Alliance to Improve Outcomes in Acne. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003;49; S137.
Gollnick HPM, Finlay AY, Shear N. Can we define acne as a chronic disease? If so, how and
when? American journal of clinical dermatology. 2008;9; 279-284.
O'brien SC, Lewis JB, Cunliffe WJ. The Leeds revised acne grading system. Journal of
Dermatological Treatment. 1998;9; 215-220.
Dreno B, Bodokh I, Chivot M, Daniel F, Humbert P, Poli F, et al. [ECLA grading: a system of
acne classification for every day dermatological practice]. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 1999;126;
136-141.
Dreno B, Alirezai M, Auffret N, Beylot C, Chivot M, Daniel F, et al. [Clinical and psychological
correlation in acne: use of the ECLA and CADI scales]. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2007;134; 451455.
Pochi PE, Shalita AR, Strauss JS, Webster SB, Cunliffe WJ, Katz HI, et al. Report of the
Consensus Conference on Acne Classification. Washington, D.C., March 24 and 25, 1990. J Am
Acad Dermatol. 1991;24; 495-500.
Cook CH, Centner RL, Michaels SE. An acne grading method using photographic standards.
Arch Dermatol. 1979;115; 571-575.
Pillsbury DM, Shelley WB, Kligman AM. Acne, acneform eruptions and rosacea. In: Pillsbury DM,
Shelley WB, Kligman AM, editors. Dermatology. Philadelphia. Saunders, 1956. p8004-8027.
Michaelsson G, Juhlin L, Vahlquist A. Effects of oral zinc and vitamin A in acne. Arch Dermatol.
1977;113; 31-36.
Wilson RG. Office application of a new acne grading system. Cutis. 1980;25; 62-64.
Allen BS, Smith JG, Jr. Various parameters for grading acne vulgaris. Arch Dermatol. 1982;118;
23-25.
Layton AM. Disorders of the Sebaceous Glands. In: Burns T, Breathnach S, Cosx N, Griffiths C,
editors. Rooks Textbook of Dermatology. 8th ed. Oxford. Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. p38-39.
Tan JK, Tang J, Fung K, Gupta AK, Thomas DR, Sapra S, et al. Development and validation of a
comprehensive acne severity scale. J Cutan Med Surg. 2007;11; 211-216.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for Industry. Acne Vulgaris: Developing Drugs for
Treatment (2005). Last accessed: 04.05.2011, URL:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UC
M071292.pdf.
Simpson NB, Cunliffe WJ. Disorders of the Sebaceous Glands. In: Burns T, Breathnach S, Cosx
N, Griffiths C, editors. Rooks Textbook of Dermatology. 7th ed. Oxford. Blackwell Science, 2004.
p43.
47
[26] Holland DB, Jeremy AH. The role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of acne and acne scarring.
Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2005;24; 79-83.
[27] Dreno B, Bettoli V, Ochsendorf F, Perez-Lopez M, Mobacken H, Degreef H, et al. An expert view
on the treatment of acne with systemic antibiotics and/or oral isotretinoin in the light of the new
European recommendations. Eur J Dermatol. 2006;16; 565-571.
[28] Layton AM, Henderson CA, Cunliffe WJ. A clinical evaluation of acne scarring and its incidence.
Clin Exp Dermatol. 1994;19; 303-308.
[29] Pathirana D, Nast A, Ormerod AD, Reytan N, Saiag P, Smith CH, et al. On the development of
the European S3 guidelines on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris: structure and
challenges. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2010.
[30] Pathirana D, Ormerod AD, Saiag P, Smith C, Spuls PI, Nast A, et al. European S3-guidelines on
the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2009;23 Suppl 2; 170.
[31] GRADE working group Last accessed: 02.11.2010, URL: http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/.
[32] Amado JM, Matos ME, Abreu AM, Loureiro L, Oliveira J, Verde A, et al. The prevalence of acne
in the north of Portugal. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2006;20; 1287-1295.
[33] Kilkenny M, Merlin K, Plunkett A, Marks R. The prevalence of common skin conditions in
Australian school students: 3. acne vulgaris. Br J Dermatol. 1998;139; 840-845.
[34] Nijsten T, Rombouts S, Lambert J. Acne is prevalent but use of its treatments is infrequent
among adolescents from the general population. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2007;21; 163168.
[35] Smithard A, Glazebrook C, Williams HC. Acne prevalence, knowledge about acne and
psychological morbidity in mid-adolescence: a community-based study. Br J Dermatol. 2001;145;
274-279.
[36] Goulden V, Stables GI, Cunliffe WJ. Prevalence of facial acne in adults. J Am Acad Dermatol.
1999;41; 577-580.
[37] Friedman GD. Twin studies of disease heritability based on medical records: application to acne
vulgaris. Acta Genet Med Gemellol (Roma). 1984;33; 487-495.
[38] Dreno B, Poli F. Epidemiology of acne. Dermatology. 2003;206; 7-10.
[39] Herane MI, Ando I. Acne in infancy and acne genetics. Dermatology. 2003;206; 24-28.
[40] Perkins A, Cheng C, Hillebrand G, Miyamoto K, Kimball A. Comparison of the epidemiology of
acne vulgaris among Caucasian, Asian, Continental Indian and African American women. J Eur
Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2010.
[41] Cheng CE, Irwin B, Mauriello D, Liang L, Pappert A, Kimball AB. Self-reported acne severity,
treatment, and belief patterns across multiple racial and ethnic groups in adolescent students.
Pediatr Dermatol. 2010;27; 446-452.
[42] Cordain L, Lindeberg S, Hurtado M, Hill K, Eaton SB, Brand-Miller J. Acne vulgaris: a disease of
Western civilization. Arch Dermatol. 2002;138; 1584-1590.
[43] Adebamowo CA, Spiegelman D, Danby FW, Frazier AL, Willett WC, Holmes MD. High school
dietary dairy intake and teenage acne. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52; 207-214.
[44] Smith RN, Mann NJ, Braue A, Makelainen H, Varigos GA. A low-glycemic-load diet improves
symptoms in acne vulgaris patients: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;86; 107115.
[45] Katsambas A, Graupe K, Stratigos J. Clinical studies of 20% azelaic acid cream in the treatment
of acne vulgaris. Comparison with vehicle and topical tretinoin. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl
(Stockh). 1989;143; 35-39.
[46] Iraji F, Sadeghinia A, Shahmoradi Z, Siadat AH, Jooya A. Efficacy of topical azelaic acid gel in
the treatment of mild-moderate acne vulgaris. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2007;73; 9496.
[47] Cunliffe WJ, Holland KT. Clinical and laboratory studies on treatment with 20% azelaic acid
cream for acne. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh). 1989;143; 31-34.
[48] Sklar JL, Jacobson C, Rizer R, Gans EH. Evaluation of Triaz 10% Gel and Benzamycin in acne
vulgaris. Journal of Dermatological Treatment. 1996;7; 147-152.
[49] Hughes BR, Norris JF, Cunliffe WJ. A double-blind evaluation of topical isotretinoin 0.05%,
benzoyl peroxide gel 5% and placebo in patients with acne. Clin Exp Dermatol. 1992;17; 165168.
[50] Thiboutot DM, Weiss J, Bucko A, Eichenfield L, Jones T, Clark S, et al. Adapalene-benzoyl
peroxide, a fixed-dose combination for the treatment of acne vulgaris: results of a multicenter,
randomized double-blind, controlled study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;57; 791-799.
48
[51] Gold LS, Tan J, Cruz-Santana A, Papp K, Poulin Y, Schlessinger J, et al. A North American
study of adapalene-benzoyl peroxide combination gel in the treatment of acne. Cutis. 2009;84;
110-116.
[52] Papageorgiou PP, Chu AC. Chloroxylenol and zinc oxide containing cream (Nels cream) vs. 5%
benzoyl peroxide cream in the treatment of acne vulgaris. A double-blind, randomized, controlled
trial. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2000;25; 16-20.
[53] Hunt MJ, Barnetson RS. A comparative study of gluconolactone versus benzoyl peroxide in the
treatment of acne. Australas J Dermatol. 1992;33; 131-134.
[54] Webster G, Rich P, Gold MH, Mraz S, Calvarese B, Chen D. Efficacy and tolerability of a fixed
combination of clindamycin phosphate (1.2%) and low concentration benzoyl peroxide (2.5%)
aqueous gel in moderate or severe acne subpopulations. J Drugs Dermatol. 2009;8; 736-743.
[55] Thiboutot D, Zaenglein A, Weiss J, Webster G, Calvarese B, Chen D. An aqueous gel fixed
combination of clindamycin phosphate 1.2% and benzoyl peroxide 2.5% for the once-daily
treatment of moderate to severe acne vulgaris: assessment of efficacy and safety in 2813
patients. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;59; 792-800.
[56] Lookingbill DP, Chalker DK, Lindholm JS, Katz HI, Kempers SE, Huerter CJ, et al. Treatment of
acne with a combination clindamycin/benzoyl peroxide gel compared with clindamycin gel,
benzoyl peroxide gel and vehicle gel: combined results of two double-blind investigations. J Am
Acad Dermatol. 1997;37; 590-595.
[57] Tschen EH, Katz HI, Jones TM, Monroe EW, Kraus SJ, Connolly MA, et al. A combination
benzoyl peroxide and clindamycin topical gel compared with benzoyl peroxide, clindamycin
phosphate, and vehicle in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Cutis. 2001;67; 165-169.
[58] Fagundes DS, Fraser JM, Klauda HC. New therapy update--A unique combination formulation in
the treatment of inflammatory acne. Cutis. 2003;72; 16-19.
[59] Burke B, Eady EA, Cunliffe WJ. Benzoyl peroxide versus topical erythromycin in the treatment of
acne vulgaris. Br J Dermatol. 1983;108; 199-204.
[60] Gollnick HP, Draelos Z, Glenn MJ, Rosoph LA, Kaszuba A, Cornelison R, et al. Adapalenebenzoyl peroxide, a unique fixed-dose combination topical gel for the treatment of acne vulgaris:
a transatlantic, randomized, double-blind, controlled study in 1670 patients. Br J Dermatol.
2009;161; 1180-1189.
[61] Thiboutot D, Pariser DM, Egan N, Flores J, Herndon JH, Jr., Kanof NB, et al. Adapalene gel
0.3% for the treatment of acne vulgaris: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled,
phase III trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54; 242-250.
[62] Pariser DM, Thiboutot DM, Clark SD, Jones TM, Liu Y, Graeber M. The efficacy and safety of
adapalene gel 0.3% in the treatment of acne vulgaris: A randomized, multicenter, investigatorblinded, controlled comparison study versus adapalene gel 0.1% and vehicle. Cutis. 2005;76;
145-151.
[63] Lucky A, Jorizzo JL, Rodriguez D, Jones TM, Stewart DM, Tschen EH, et al. Efficacy and
tolerance of adapalene cream 0.1% compared with its cream vehicle for the treatment of acne
vulgaris. Cutis. 2001;68; 34-40.
[64] Kawashima M, Harada S, Loesche C, Miyachi Y. Adapalene gel 0.1% is effective and safe for
Japanese patients with acne vulgaris: a randomized, multicenter, investigator-blinded, controlled
study. J Dermatol Sci. 2008;49; 241-248.
[65] Chalker DK, Lesher JL, Jr., Smith JG, Jr., Klauda HC, Pochi PE, Jacoby WS, et al. Efficacy of
topical isotretinoin 0.05% gel in acne vulgaris: results of a multicenter, double-blind investigation.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 1987;17; 251-254.
[66] Glass D, Boorman GC, Stables GI, Cunliffe WJ, Goode K. A placebo-controlled clinical trial to
compare a gel containing a combination of isotretinoin (0.05%) and erythromycin (2%) with gels
containing isotretinoin (0.05%) or erythromycin (2%) alone in the topical treatment of acne
vulgaris. Dermatology. 1999;199; 242-247.
[67] Berger R, Barba A, Fleischer A, Leyden JJ, Lucky A, Pariser D, et al. A double-blinded,
randomized, vehicle-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group study to assess the safety and
efficacy of tretinoin gel microsphere 0.04% in the treatment of acne vulgaris in adults. Cutis.
2007;80; 152-157.
[68] Christiansen J, Holm P, Reymann F. The retinoic acid derivative Ro 11-1430 in Acne vulgaris. A
controlled multicenter trial against retinoic acid. Dermatologica. 1977;154; 219-227.
[69] Krishnan G. Comparison of two concentrations of tretinoin solution in the topical treatment of
acne vulgaris. Practitioner. 1976;216; 106-109.
49
[70] Lucky AW, Cullen SI, Jarratt MT, Quigley JW. Comparative efficacy and safety of two 0.025%
tretinoin gels: results from a multicenter double-blind, parallel study. J Am Acad Dermatol.
1998;38; S17-23.
[71] Lucky AW, Cullen SI, Funicella T, Jarratt MT, Jones T, Reddick ME. Double-blind, vehiclecontrolled, multicenter comparison of two 0.025% tretinoin creams in patients with acne vulgaris.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 1998;38; S24-30.
[72] Leyden JJ, Krochmal L, Yaroshinsky A. Two randomized, double-blind, controlled trials of 2219
subjects to compare the combination clindamycin/tretinoin hydrogel with each agent alone and
vehicle for the treatment of acne vulgaris. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54; 73-81.
[73] Pedace FJ, Stoughton R. Topical retinoic acid in acne vulgaris. Br J Dermatol. 1971;84; 465-469.
[74] Nighland M, Grossman R. Tretinoin microsphere gel in facial acne vulgaris: a meta-analysis. J
Drugs Dermatol. 2008;7; s2-8.
[75] Webster G, Cargill DI, Quiring J, Vogelson CT, Slade HB. A combined analysis of 2 randomized
clinical studies of tretinoin gel 0.05% for the treatment of acne. Cutis. 2009;83; 146-154.
[76] Kuhlman DS, Callen JP. A comparison of clindamycin phosphate 1 percent topical lotion and
placebo in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Cutis. 1986;38; 203-206.
[77] Lucchina LC, Kollias N, Gillies R, Phillips SB, Muccini JA, Stiller MJ, et al. Fluorescence
photography in the evaluation of acne. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1996;35; 58-63.
[78] Rizer RL, Sklar JL, Whiting D, Bucko A, Shavin J, Jarratt M. Clindamycin phosphate 1% gel in
acne vulgaris. Adv Ther. 2001;18; 244-252.
[79] Shalita AR, Myers JA, Krochmal L, Yaroshinsky A. The safety and efficacy of clindamycin
phosphate foam 1% versus clindamycin phosphate topical gel 1% for the treatment of acne
vulgaris. J Drugs Dermatol. 2005;4; 48-56.
[80] Blaney DJ, Cook CH. Topical use of tetracycline in the treatment of acne: a double-blind study
comparing topical and oral tetracycline therapy and placebo. Arch Dermatol. 1976;112; 971-973.
[81] Smith JG, Jr., Chalker DK, Wehr RF. The effectiveness of topical and oral tetracycline for acne.
South Med J. 1976;69; 695-697.
[82] Mills O, Jr., Thornsberry C, Cardin CW, Smiles KA, Leyden JJ. Bacterial resistance and
therapeutic outcome following three months of topical acne therapy with 2% erythromycin gel
versus its vehicle. Acta Derm Venereol. 2002;82; 260-265.
[83] Dobson RL, Belknap BS. Topical erythromycin solution in acne. Results of a multiclinic trial. J
Am Acad Dermatol. 1980;3; 478-482.
[84] Llorca M, Hernandez-Gill A, Ramos M, al. e. Erythromycin laurilsulfate in the topical treatment of
acne vulgaris. Curr Ther Res. 1982;32; 14-20.
[85] Pochi PE, Bagatell FK, Ellis CN, Stoughton RB, Whitmore CG, Saatjian GD, et al. Erythromycin
2 percent gel in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Cutis. 1988;41; 132-136.
[86] Stinco G, Bragadin G, Trotter D, Pillon B, Patrone P. Relationship between sebostatic activity,
tolerability and efficacy of three topical drugs to treat mild to moderate acne. J Eur Acad
Dermatol Venereol. 2007;21; 320-325.
[87] do Nascimento LV, Guedes AC, Magalhaes GM, de Faria FA, Guerra RM, de CAF. Single-blind
and comparative clinical study of the efficacy and safety of benzoyl peroxide 4% gel (BID) and
adapalene 0.1% Gel (QD) in the treatment of acne vulgaris for 11 weeks. The Journal of
dermatological treatment. 2003;14; 166-171.
[88] Korkut C, Piskin S. Benzoyl peroxide, adapalene, and their combination in the treatment of acne
vulgaris. J Dermatol. 2005;32; 169-173.
[89] Bucknall JH, Murdoch PN. Comparison of tretinoin solution and benzoyl peroxide lotion in the
treatment of acne vulgaris. Curr Med Res Opin. 1977;5; 266-268.
[90] Handojo I. The combined use of topical benzoyl peroxide and tretinoin in the treatment of acne
vulgaris. Int J Dermatol. 1979;18; 489-496.
[91] Lyons RE. Comparative effectiveness of benzoyl peroxide and tretinoin in acne vulgaris. Int J
Dermatol. 1978;17; 246-251.
[92] Swinyer LJ, Baker MD, Swinyer TA, Mills OH, Jr. A comparative study of benzoyl peroxide and
clindamycin phosphate for treating acne vulgaris. Br J Dermatol. 1988;119; 615-622.
[93] Tucker SB, Tausend R, Cochran R, Flannigan SA. Comparison of topical clindamycin
phosphate, benzoyl peroxide, and a combination of the two for the treatment of acne vulgaris. Br
J Dermatol. 1984;110; 487-492.
[94] Norris JF, Hughes BR, Basey AJ, Cunliffe WJ. A comparison of the effectiveness of topical
tetracycline, benzoyl-peroxide gel and oral oxytetracycline in the treatment of acne. Clin Exp
Dermatol. 1991;16; 31-33.
50
[95] Gollnick HP, Graupe K, Zaumseil RP. [Azelaic acid 15% gel in the treatment of acne vulgaris.
Combined results of two double-blind clinical comparative studies]. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges.
2004;2; 841-847.
[96] Rietschel RL, Duncan SH. Clindamycin phosphate used in combination with tretinoin in the
treatment of acne. Int J Dermatol. 1983;22; 41-43.
[97] Thiboutot D, Gold MH, Jarratt MT, Kang S, Kaplan DL, Millikan L, et al. Randomized controlled
trial of the tolerability, safety, and efficacy of adapalene gel 0.1% and tretinoin microsphere gel
0.1% for the treatment of acne vulgaris. Cutis. 2001;68; 10-19.
[98] Tu P, Li GQ, Zhu XJ, Zheng J, Wong WZ. A comparison of adapalene gel 0.1% vs. tretinoin gel
0.025% in the treatment of acne vulgaris in China. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2001;15 Suppl
3; 31-36.
[99] Pierard-Franchimont C, Henry F, Fraiture AL, Fumal I, Pierard GE. Split-face clinical and bioinstrumental comparison of 0.1% adapalene and 0.05% tretinoin in facial acne. Dermatology.
1999;198; 218-222.
[100] Cunliffe WJ, Danby FW, Dunlap F, Gold MH, Gratton D, Greenspan A. Randomised, controlled
trial of the efficacy and safety of adapalene gel 0.1% and tretinoin cream 0.05% in patients with
acne vulgaris. Eur J Dermatol. 2002;12; 350-354.
[101] Cunliffe WJ, Caputo R, Dreno B, Forstrom L, Heenen M, Orfanos CE, et al. Efficacy and safety
comparison of adapalene (CD271) gel and tretinoin gel in the topical treatment of acne vulgaris.
A European multicentre trial. Journal of Dermatological Treatment. 1997;8; 173-178.
[102] Ellis CN, Millikan LE, Smith EB, Chalker DM, Swinyer LJ, Katz IH, et al. Comparison of
adapalene 0.1% solution and tretinoin 0.025% gel in the topical treatment of acne vulgaris. Br J
Dermatol. 1998;139 Suppl 52; 41-47.
[103] Grosshans E, Marks R, Mascaro JM, Torras H, Meynadier J, Alirezai M, et al. Evaluation of
clinical efficacy and safety of adapalene 0.1% gel versus tretinoin 0.025% gel in the treatment of
acne vulgaris, with particular reference to the onset of action and impact on quality of life. Br J
Dermatol. 1998;139 Suppl 52; 26-33.
[104] Shalita A, Weiss JS, Chalker DK, Ellis CN, Greenspan A, Katz HI, et al. A comparison of the
efficacy and safety of adapalene gel 0.1% and tretinoin gel 0.025% in the treatment of acne
vulgaris: a multicenter trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1996;34; 482-485.
[105] Verschoore M, Langner A, Wolska H, Jablonska S, Czernielewski J, Schaefer H. Efficacy and
safety of CD 271 alcoholic gels in the topical treatment of acne vulgaris. Br J Dermatol.
1991;124; 368-371.
[106] Nyirady J, Grossman RM, Nighland M, Berger RS, Jorizzo JL, Kim YH, et al. A comparative trial
of two retinoids commonly used in the treatment of acne vulgaris. The Journal of dermatological
treatment. 2001;12; 149-157.
[107] Ioannides D, Rigopoulos D, Katsambas A. Topical adapalene gel 0.1% vs. isotretinoin gel 0.05%
in the treatment of acne vulgaris: a randomized open-label clinical trial. Br J Dermatol. 2002;147;
523-527.
[108] Dominguez J, Hojyo MT, Celayo JL, Dominguez-Soto L, Teixeira F. Topical isotretinoin vs.
topical retinoic acid in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Int J Dermatol. 1998;37; 54-55.
[109] Leyden JJ, Hickman JG, Jarratt MT, Stewart DM, Levy SF. The efficacy and safety of a
combination benzoyl peroxide/clindamycin topical gel compared with benzoyl peroxide alone and
a benzoyl peroxide/erythromycin combination product. J Cutan Med Surg. 2001;5; 37-42.
[110] Cunliffe WJ, Holland KT, Bojar R, Levy SF. A randomized, double-blind comparison of a
clindamycin phosphate/benzoyl peroxide gel formulation and a matching clindamycin gel with
respect to microbiologic activity and clinical efficacy in the topical treatment of acne vulgaris. Clin
Ther. 2002;24; 1117-1133.
[111] Kircik L, Green L, Thiboutot D, Tanghetti E, Wilson D, Dhawan S, et al. Comparing a novel
solubilized benzoyl peroxide gel with benzoyl peroxide/clindamycin: final data from a multicenter,
investigator-blind, randomized study. J Drugs Dermatol. 2009;8; 812-818.
[112] Tanghetti E, Kircik L, Wilson D, Dhawan S. Solubilized benzoyl peroxide versus benzoyl
peroxide/clindamycin in the treatment of moderate acne. J Drugs Dermatol. 2008;7; 534-538.
[113] Zouboulis CC, Fischer TC, Wohlrab J, Barnard J, Alio AB. Study of the efficacy, tolerability, and
safety of 2 fixed-dose combination gels in the management of acne vulgaris. Cutis. 2009;84;
223-229.
[114] Tan J, Gollnick HP, Loesche C, Ma YM, Gold LS. Synergistic efficacy of adapalene 0.1%benzoyl peroxide 2.5% in the treatment of 3855 acne vulgaris patients. The Journal of
dermatological treatment. 2010.
51
[115] Gold LS, Cruz A, Eichenfield L, Tan J, Jorizzo J, Kerrouche N, et al. Effective and safe
combination therapy for severe acne vulgaris: a randomized, vehicle-controlled, double-blind
study of adapalene 0.1%-benzoyl peroxide 2.5% fixed-dose combination gel with doxycycline
hyclate 100 mg. Cutis. 2010;85; 94-104.
[116] Kellett N, West F, Finlay AY. Conjoint analysis: a novel, rigorous tool for determining patient
preferences for topical antibiotic treatment for acne. A randomised controlled trial. Br J Dermatol.
2006;154; 524-532.
[117] Henderson TA, Olson WH, A.D. L. A single-blind, randomized comparison of erythromycin
pledgets and clindamycin lotion in the treatment of mild to moderate facial acne vulgaris. Adv
Ther. 1995;12; 172-177.
[118] Thielitz A, Helmdach M, Rpke EM, Gollnick H. Lipid analysis of follicular casts from
cyanoacrylate strips as a new method for studying therapeutic effects of antiacne agents. Br J
Dermatol. 2001;145; 19-27.
[119] Thielitz A, Sidou F, Gollnick H. Control of microcomedone formation throughout a maintenance
treatment with adapalene gel, 0.1%. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2007;21; 747-753.
[120] Bernstein JE, Shalita AR. Topically applied erythromycin in inflammatory acne vulgaris. J Am
Acad Dermatol. 1980;2; 318-321.
[121] Hellgren L, Vincent J. Topical erythromycin for acne vulgaris. Dermatologica. 1980;161; 409-414.
[122] Jones EL, Crumley AF. Topical erythromycin vs blank vehicle in a multiclinic acne study. Arch
Dermatol. 1981;117; 551-553.
[123] Lesher JL, Jr., Chalker DK, Smith JG, Jr., Guenther LC, Ellis CN, Voorhees JJ, et al. An
evaluation of a 2% erythromycin ointment in the topical therapy of acne vulgaris. J Am Acad
Dermatol. 1985;12; 526-531.
[124] Prince RA, Busch DA, Hepler CD, Feldick HG. Clinical trial of topical erythromycin in
inflammatory acne. Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1981;15; 372-376.
[125] Rivkin L, Rapaport M. Clinical evaluation of a new erythromycin solution for acne vulgaris. Cutis.
1980;25; 552-555.
[126] Alirezai M, Gerlach B, Horvath A, Forsea D, Briantais P, Guyomar M. Results of a randomised,
multicentre study comparing a new water-based gel of clindamycin 1% versus clindamycin 1%
topical solution in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Eur J Dermatol. 2005;15; 274-278.
[127] Braathen LR. Topical clindamycin versus oral tetracycline and placebo in acne vulgaris. Scand J
Infect Dis Suppl. 1984;43; 71-75.
[128] Gratton D, Raymond GP, Guertin-Larochelle S, Maddin SW, Leneck CM, Warner J, et al. Topical
clindamycin versus systemic tetracycline in the treatment of acne. Results of a multiclinic trial. J
[129] Becker LE, Bergstresser PR, Whiting DA, Clendenning WE, Dobson RL, Jordan WP, et al.
Topical clindamycin therapy for acne vulgaris. A cooperative clinical study. Arch Dermatol.
1981;117; 482-485.
[130] Ellis CN, Gammon WR, Stone DZ, Heezen-Wehner JL. A comparison of Cleocin T Solution,
Cleocin T Gel, and placebo in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Cutis. 1988;42; 245-247.
[131] McKenzie MW, Beck DC, Popovich NG. Topical clindamycin formulations for the treatment of
acne vulgaris. An evaluation. Arch Dermatol. 1981;117; 630-634.
[132] Petersen MJ, Krusinski PA, Krueger GG. Evaluation of 1% clindamycin phosphate lotion in the
treatment of acne. Curr Ther Res. 1986;40; 232-238.
[133] Leyden JJ, Wortzman M. A novel gel formulation of clindamycin phosphate-tretinoin is not
associated with acne flaring. Cutis. 2008;82; 151-156.
[134] Anderson RL, Cook CH, Smith DE. The effect of oral and topical tetracycline on acne severity
and on surface lipid composition. J Invest Dermatol. 1976;66; 172-177.
[135] Kurokawa I, Akamatsu H, Nishijima S, Asada Y, Kawabata S. Clinical and bacteriologic
evaluation of OPC-7251 in patients with acne: a double-blind group comparison study versus
cream base. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1991;25; 674-681.
[136] Ellis CN, Leyden J, Katz HI, Goldfarb MT, Hickman J, Jones TM, et al. Therapeutic studies with a
new combination benzoyl peroxide/clindamycin topical gel in acne vulgaris. Cutis. 2001;67; 1320.
[137] Ede M. A double-blind, comparative study of benzoyl peroxide, benzoyl peroxidechlorhydroxyquinoline, benzoyl peroxide-chlorhydroxyquinoline-hydrocortisone, and placebo
lotions in acne. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 1973;15; 624-629.
[138] Jaffe GV, Grimshaw JJ, Constad D. Benzoyl peroxide in the treatment of acne vulgaris: a
double-blind, multi-centre comparative study of 'Quinoderm' cream and 'Quinoderm' cream with
52
hydrocortisone versus their base vehicle alone and a benzoyl peroxide only gel preparation. Curr
Med Res Opin. 1989;11; 453-462.
[139] Mills OH, Jr., Kligman AM, Pochi P, Comite H. Comparing 2.5%, 5%, and 10% benzoyl peroxide
on inflammatory acne vulgaris. Int J Dermatol. 1986;25; 664-667.
[140] Smith EB, Padilla RS, McCabe JM, Becker LE. Benzoyl peroxide lotion (20 percent) in acne.
Cutis. 1980;25; 90-92.
[141] Langner A, Boorman GC, Stapor V. Isotretinoin cream 0.05% and 0.1% in the treatment of acne
vulgaris. J Dermatol Treat. 1994;5; 177180.
[142] Webster GF. Safety and efficacy of Tretin-X compared with Retin-A in patients with mild-tosevere acne vulgaris. Skinmed. 2006;5; 114-118.
[143] Mills OH, Jr., Kligman AM. Treatment of acne vulgaris with topically applied erythromycin and
tretinoin. Acta Derm Venereol. 1978;58; 555-557.
[144] Cavicchini S, Caputo R. Long-term treatment of acne with 20% azelaic acid cream. Acta Derm
Venereol Suppl (Stockh). 1989;143; 40-44.
[145] Handojo I. Retinoic acid cream (Airol cream) and benzoyl-peroxide in the treatment of acne
vulgaris. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 1979;10; 548-551.
[146] Zhu XJ, Tu P, Zhen J, Duan YQ. Adapalene gel 0.1%: effective and well tolerated in the topical
treatment of acne vulgaris in Chinese patients. Cutis. 2001;68; 55-59.
[147] Leyden JJ, Berger RS, Dunlap FE, Ellis CN, Connolly MA, Levy SF. Comparison of the efficacy
and safety of a combination topical gel formulation of benzoyl peroxide and clindamycin with
benzoyl peroxide, clindamycin and vehicle gel in the treatments of acne vulgaris. American
journal of clinical dermatology. 2001;2; 33-39.
[148] Bojar RA, Eady EA, Jones CE, Cunliffe WJ, Holland KT. Inhibition of erythromycin-resistant
propionibacteria on the skin of acne patients by topical erythromycin with and without zinc. Br J
Dermatol. 1994;130; 329-336.
[149] Habbema L, Koopmans B, Menke HE, Doornweerd S, De Boulle K. A 4% erythromycin and zinc
combination (Zineryt) versus 2% erythromycin (Eryderm) in acne vulgaris: a randomized, doubleblind comparative study. Br J Dermatol. 1989;121; 497-502.
[150] Stoughton RB, Cornell RC, Gange RW, Walter JF. Double-blind comparison of topical 1 percent
clindamycin phosphate (Cleocin T) and oral tetracycline 500 mg/day in the treatment of acne
vulgaris. Cutis. 1980;26; 424-425, 429.
[151] Rapaport M, Puhvel SM, Reisner RM. Evaluation of topical erythromycin and oral tetracycline in
acne vulgaris. Cutis. 1982;30; 122-126, 130, 132-125.
[152] Sheehan-Dare RA, Papworth-Smith J, Cunliffe WJ. A double-blind comparison of topical
clindamycin and oral minocycline in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Acta Derm Venereol.
1990;70; 534-537.
[153] Katsambas A, Towarky AA, Stratigos J. Topical clindamycin phosphate compared with oral
tetracycline in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Br J Dermatol. 1987;116; 387-391.
[154] Borglund E, Hagermark O, Nord CE. Impact of topical clindamycin and systemic tetracycline on
the skin and colon microflora in patients with acne vulgaris. Scand J Infect Dis Suppl. 1984;43;
76-81.
[155] Hjorth N, Graupe K. Azelaic acid for the treatment of acne. A clinical comparison with oral
tetracycline. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh). 1989;143; 45-48.
[156] Drake LA. Comparative efficacy and tolerance of Cleocin T topical gel (clindamycin phosphate
topical gel) versus oral minocycline in the treatment of acne vulgaris. unpublished. 1980.
[157] Peacock CE, Price C, Ryan BE, Mitchell AD. Topical clindamycin (Dalacin T(TM)) compared to
oral minocycline (Minocin 50(TM)) in treatment of acne vulgaris. A randomized observer-blind
controlled trial in three university student health centres. Clin Trials J. 1990;27; 219-228.
[158] Ozolins M, Eady EA, Avery A, Cunliffe WJ, O'Neill C, Simpson NB, et al. Randomised controlled
multiple treatment comparison to provide a cost-effectiveness rationale for the selection of
antimicrobial therapy in acne. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9; iii-212.
[159] Ozolins M, Eady EA, Avery AJ, Cunliffe WJ, Po AL, O'Neill C, et al. Comparison of five
antimicrobial regimens for treatment of mild to moderate inflammatory facial acne vulgaris in the
community: randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;364; 2188-2195.
[160] Bladon PT, Burke BM, Cunliffe WJ, Forster RA, Holland KT, King K. Topical azelaic acid and the
treatment of acne: a clinical and laboratory comparison with oral tetracycline. Br J Dermatol.
1986;114; 493-499.
[161] Mareledwane NG. A randomized, open-label, comparative study of oral doxycycline 100 mg vs.
5% topical benzoyl peroxide in the treatment of mild to moderate acne vulgaris. Int J Dermatol.
2006;45; 1438-1439.
53
[162] Thiboutot DM, Shalita AR, Yamauchi PS, Dawson C, Arsonnaud S, Kang S. Combination
therapy with adapalene gel 0.1% and doxycycline for severe acne vulgaris: a multicenter,
investigator-blind, randomized, controlled study. Skinmed. 2005;4; 138-146.
[163] Cunliffe WJ, Meynadier J, Alirezai M, George SA, Coutts I, Roseeuw DI, et al. Is combined oral
and topical therapy better than oral therapy alone in patients with moderate to moderately severe
acne vulgaris? A comparison of the efficacy and safety of lymecycline plus adapalene gel 0.1%,
versus lymecycline plus gel vehicle. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003;49; S218-226.
[164] Gollnick HP, Graupe K, Zaumseil RP. Comparison of combined azelaic acid cream plus oral
minocycline with oral isotretinoin in severe acne. Eur J Dermatol. 2001;11; 538-544.
[165] Oprica C, Emtestam L, Hagstromer L, Nord CE. Clinical and microbiological comparisons of
isotretinoin vs. tetracycline in acne vulgaris. Acta Derm Venereol. 2007;87; 246-254.
[166] Dreno B, Moyse D, Alirezai M, Amblard P, Auffret N, Beylot C, et al. Multicenter randomized
comparative double-blind controlled clinical trial of the safety and efficacy of zinc gluconate
versus minocycline hydrochloride in the treatment of inflammatory acne vulgaris. Dermatology.
2001;203; 135-140.
[167] Cunliffe WJ, Burke B, Dodman B, Gould DJ. A double-blind trial of a zinc sulphate/citrate
complex and tetracycline in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Br J Dermatol. 1979;101; 321-325.
[168] Carlborg L. Cyproterone acetate versus levonorgestrel combined with ethinyl estradiol in the
treatment of acne. Results of a multicenter study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl. 1986;134;
29-32.
[169] Lachnit-Fixson U, Kaufmann J. [Therapy of androgenization symptoms: double blind study of an
antiandrogen preparation (SH B 209 AB) against neogynon (author's transl)]. Med Klin. 1977;72;
1922-1926.
[170] Wishart JM. An open study of Triphasil and Diane 50 in the treatment of acne. Australas J
Dermatol. 1991;32; 51-54.
[171] Vartiainen M, de Gezelle H, Broekmeulen CJ. Comparison of the effect on acne with a
combiphasic desogestrel-containing oral contraceptive and a preparation containing cyproterone
acetate. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2001;6; 46-53.
[172] Charoenvisal C, Thaipisuttikul Y, Pinjaroen S, Krisanapan O, Benjawang W, Koster A, et al.
Effects on acne of two oral contraceptives containing desogestrel and cyproterone acetate. Int J
Fertil Menopausal Stud. 1996;41; 423-429.
[173] Dieben TO, Vromans L, Theeuwes A, Bennink HJ. The effects of CTR-24, a biphasic oral
contraceptive combination, compared to Diane-35 in women with acne. Contraception. 1994;50;
373-382.
[174] Erkkola R, Hirvonen E, Luikku J, Lumme R, Mannikko H, Aydinlik S. Ovulation inhibitors
containing cyproterone acetate or desogestrel in the treatment of hyperandrogenic symptoms.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1990;69; 61-65.
[175] Worret I, Arp W, Zahradnik HP, Andreas JO, Binder N. Acne resolution rates: results of a singleblind, randomized, controlled, parallel phase III trial with EE/CMA (Belara) and EE/LNG
(Microgynon). Dermatology. 2001;203; 38-44.
[176] Thorneycroft H, Gollnick H, Schellschmidt I. Superiority of a combined contraceptive containing
drospirenone to a triphasic preparation containing norgestimate in acne treatment. Cutis.
2004;74; 123-130.
[177] Winkler UH, Ferguson H, Mulders JA. Cycle control, quality of life and acne with two low-dose
oral contraceptives containing 20 microg ethinylestradiol. Contraception. 2004;69; 469-476.
[178] Rosen MP, Breitkopf DM, Nagamani M. A randomized controlled trial of second- versus thirdgeneration oral contraceptives in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188;
1158-1160.
[179] Palatsi R, Hirvensalo E, Liukko P, Malmiharju T, Mattila L, Riihiluoma P, et al. Serum total and
unbound testosterone and sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) in female acne patients treated
with two different oral contraceptives. Acta Derm Venereol. 1984;64; 517-523.
[180] Monk BE, Almeyda JA, Caldwell IW, Green B, Pelta D, Leonard J, et al. Efficacy of low-dose
cyproterone acetate compared with minocycline in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Clin Exp
Dermatol. 1987;12; 319-322.
[181] Greenwood R, Brummitt L, Burke B, Cunliffe WJ. Acne: double blind clinical and laboratory trial
of tetracycline, oestrogen-cyproterone acetate, and combined treatment. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed).
1985;291; 1231-1235.
[182] Papageorgiou P, Katsambas A, Chu A. Phototherapy with blue (415 nm) and red (660 nm) light
in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Br J Dermatol. 2000;142; 973-978.
54
[183] Tzung TY, Wu KH, Huang ML. Blue light phototherapy in the treatment of acne. Photodermatol
Photoimmunol Photomed. 2004;20; 266-269.
[184] Feucht CL, Allen BS, Chalker DK, Smith JG, Jr. Topical erythromycin with zinc in acne. A
double-blind controlled study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1980;3; 483-491.
[185] Stainforth J, Macdonald-Hull S, Papworth-Smith JW, Eady EA, Cunliffe WJ, Norris JFB, et al. A
single-blind comparison of topical erythromycin/zinc lotion and oral minocycline in the treatment
of acne vulgaris. Journal of Dermatological Treatment. 1993;4; 119-122.
[186] Smith K, Leyden JJ. Safety of doxycycline and minocycline: a systematic review. Clin Ther.
2005;27; 1329-1342.
[187] Garner SE, Eady EA, Popescu C, Newton J, Li WA. Minocycline for acne vulgaris: efficacy and
safety. Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online). 2003; CD002086.
[188] Dunlap FE, Mills OH, Tuley MR, Baker MD, Plott RT. Adapalene 0.1% gel for the treatment of
acne vulgaris: its superiority compared to tretinoin 0.025% cream in skin tolerance and patient
preference. Br J Dermatol. 1998;139 Suppl 52; 17-22.
[189] Egan N, Loesche MC, Baker MM. Randomized, controlled, bilateral (split-face) comparison trial
of the tolerability and patient preference of adapalene gel 0.1% and tretinoin microsphere gel
0.1% for the treatment of acne vulgaris. Cutis. 2001;68; 20-24.
[190] Peck GL, Olsen TG, Butkus D, Pandya M, Arnaud-Battandier J, Gross EG, et al. Isotretinoin
versus placebo in the treatment of cystic acne. A randomized double-blind study. J Am Acad
Dermatol. 1982;6; 735-745.
[191] Strauss JS, Leyden JJ, Lucky AW, Lookingbill DP, Drake LA, Hanifin JM, et al. A randomized
trial of the efficacy of a new micronized formulation versus a standard formulation of isotretinoin
in patients with severe recalcitrant nodular acne. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001;45; 187-195.
[192] Strauss JS, Rapini RP, Shalita AR, Konecky E, Pochi PE, Comite H, et al. Isotretinoin therapy for
acne: results of a multicenter dose-response study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1984;10; 490-496.
[193] Jones DH, King K, Miller AJ, Cunliffe WJ. A dose-response study of I3-cis-retinoic acid in acne
vulgaris. Br J Dermatol. 1983;108; 333-343.
[194] King K, Jones DH, Daltrey DC, Cunliffe WJ. A double-blind study of the effects of 13-cis-retinoic
acid on acne, sebum excretion rate and microbial population. Br J Dermatol. 1982;107; 583-590.
[195] van der Meeren HL, van der Schroeff JG, Stijnen T, van Duren JA, van der Dries HA, van Voorst
Vader PC. Dose-response relationship in isotretinoin therapy for conglobate acne.
Dermatologica. 1983;167; 299-303.
[196] Al Mishari MA. A study of isotretinoin (Roaccutan) in nodulocystic acne. Clin Trials J. 1986;23; 15.
[197] Mandekou-Lefaki I, Delli F, Teknetzis A, Euthimiadou R, Karakatsanis G. Low-dose schema of
isotretinoin in acne vulgaris. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res. 2003;23; 41-46.
[198] Plewig G, Gollnick H, Meigel W, Wokalek H. [13-cis retinoic acid in the oral therapy of acne
conglobata. Results of a multi-center study]. Hautarzt. 1981;32; 634-646.
[199] Pigatto PD, Finzi AF, Altomare GF, Polenghi MM, Vergani C, Vigotti G. Isotretinoin versus
minocycline in cystic acne: a study of lipid metabolism. Dermatologica. 1986;172; 154-159.
[200] Lester RS, Schachter GD, Light MJ. Isotretinoin and tetracycline in the management of severe
nodulocystic acne. Int J Dermatol. 1985;24; 252-257.
[201] Dhir R, Gehi NP, Agarwal R, More YE. Oral isotretinoin is as effective as a combination of oral
isotretinoin and topical anti-acne agents in nodulocystic acne. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol.
2008;74; 187.
[202] Simonart T, Dramaix M, De Maertelaer V. Efficacy of tetracyclines in the treatment of acne
vulgaris: a review. Br J Dermatol. 2008;158; 208-216.
[203] Panzer JD, Poche W, Meek TJ, Derbes VJ, Atkinson W. Acne treatment: a comparative efficacy
trial of clindamycin and tetracycline. Cutis. 1977;19; 109-111.
[204] Poulos ET, Tedesco FJ. Acne vulgaris: double-blind trial comparing tetracycline and clindamycin.
Arch Dermatol. 1976;112; 974-976.
[205] Al-Mishari MA. Clinical and bacteriological evaluation of tetracycline and erythromycin in acne
vulgaris. Clin Ther. 1987;9; 273-280.
[206] Brandt H, Attila P, Ahokas T, Frstrm L, Jrvinen T, Keskitalo R, et al. Erythromycin acistrate an alternative oral treatment for acne Journal of Dermatological Treatment. 1994;5; 3-5.
[207] Gammon WR, Meyer C, Lantis S, Shenefelt P, Reizner G, Cripps DJ. Comparative efficacy of
oral erythromycin versus oral tetracycline in the treatment of acne vulgaris. A double-blind study.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 1986;14; 183-186.
[208] Moins d'effets indsirables avec la doxycycline qu'avec la minocycline. Rev Prescrire. 2009;29;
354.
55
[209] Ochsendorf F. Minocycline in acne vulgaris: benefits and risks. American journal of clinical
dermatology. 2010;11; 327-341.
[210] Layton AM, Cunliffe WJ. Phototoxic eruptions due to doxycycline--a dose-related phenomenon.
Clin Exp Dermatol. 1993;18; 425-427.
[211] Lim DS, Murphy GM. High-level ultraviolet A photoprotection is needed to prevent doxycycline
phototoxicity: lessons learned in East Timor. Br J Dermatol. 2003;149; 213-214.
[212] Bjellerup M, Ljunggren B. Differences in phototoxic potency should be considered when
tetracyclines are prescribed during summer-time. A study on doxycycline and lymecycline in
human volunteers, using an objective method for recording erythema. Br J Dermatol. 1994;130;
356-360.
[213] European Directive for systemic isotretinoin prescription. EMEA Committee for Proprietary
Medicinal Products (CPMP) 2003.
[214] Ganceviciene R, Zouboulis CC. Isotretinoin: state of the art treatment for acne vulgaris. J Dtsch
Dermatol Ges. 2010;8 Suppl 1; S47-59.
[215] Layton AM, Cunliffe WJ. Guidelines for optimal use of isotretinoin in acne. J Am Acad Dermatol.
1992;27; S2-7.
[216] Strauss JS, Krowchuk DP, Leyden JJ, Lucky AW, Shalita AR, Siegfried EC, et al. Guidelines of
care for acne vulgaris management. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;56; 651-663.
[217] Cunliffe WJ, van de Kerkhof PC, Caputo R, Cavicchini S, Cooper A, Fyrand OL, et al.
Roaccutane treatment guidelines: results of an international survey. Dermatology. 1997;194;
351-357.
[218] Layton AM. Optimal management of acne to prevent scarring and psychological sequelae.
American journal of clinical dermatology. 2001;2; 135-141.
[219] Rubinow DR, Peck GL, Squillace KM, Gantt GG. Reduced anxiety and depression in cystic acne
patients after successful treatment with oral isotretinoin. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1987;17; 25-32.
[220] Layton AM, Dreno B, Gollnick HPM, Zouboulis CC. A review of the European Directive for
prescribing systemic isotretinoin for acne vulgaris. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2006;20; 773776.
[221] Marqueling AL, Zane LT. Depression and suicidal behavior in acne patients treated with
isotretinoin: a systematic review. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2007;26; 210-220.
[222] Ross JI, Snelling AM, Eady EA, Cove JH, Cunliffe WJ, Leyden JJ, et al. Phenotypic and
genotypic characterization of antibiotic-resistant Propionibacterium acnes isolated from acne
patients attending dermatology clinics in Europe, the U.S.A., Japan and Australia. Br J Dermatol.
2001;144; 339-346.
[223] Ross JI, Snelling AM, Carnegie E, Coates P, Cunliffe WJ, Bettoli V, et al. Antibiotic-resistant
acne: lessons from Europe. Br J Dermatol. 2003;148; 467-478.
[224] Eady EA, Cove JH. Topical antibiotic therapy: current status and future prospects. Drugs Exp
Clin Res. 1990;16; 423-433.
[225] Oprica C, Nord CE, Bacteria ESGoARiA. European surveillance study on the antibiotic
susceptibility of Propionibacterium acnes. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2005;11; 204-213.
[226] Nord CE, Oprica C. Antibiotic resistance in Propionibacterium acnes. Microbiological and clinical
aspects. ANAEROBE. 2006;12; 207-210.
[227] Eady EA. Bacterial resistance in acne. Dermatology. 1998;196; 59-66.
[228] Levy RM, Huang EY, Roling D, Leyden JJ, Margolis DJ. Effect of antibiotics on the
oropharyngeal flora in patients with acne. Arch Dermatol. 2003;139; 467-471.
[229] Eady EA, Cove JH, Holland KT, Cunliffe WJ. Erythromycin resistant propionibacteria in antibiotic
treated acne patients: association with therapeutic failure. Br J Dermatol. 1989;121; 51-57.
[230] Simonart T, Dramaix M. Treatment of acne with topical antibiotics: lessons from clinical studies.
Br J Dermatol. 2005;153; 395-403.
[231] Cunliffe WJ, Forster RA, Greenwood ND, Hetherington C, Holland KT, Holmes RL, et al.
Tetracycline and acne vulgaris: a clinical and laboratory investigation. Br Med J. 1973;4; 332335.
[232] Bettoli V, Mantovani L, Borghi A. Adapalene 0.1% cream after oral isotretinoin: evaluation of the
acne recurrence incidence. 15th Annual EADV Congress. Rhodes. Medimond International
Proceedings, Bologna, Italy, 2006.
[233] Thiboutot DM, Shalita AR, Yamauchi PS, Dawson C, Kerrouche N, Arsonnaud S, et al.
Adapalene gel, 0.1%, as maintenance therapy for acne vulgaris: a randomized, controlled,
investigator-blind follow-up of a recent combination study. Arch Dermatol. 2006;142; 597-602.
[234] Zhang JZ, Li LF, Tu YT, Zheng J. A successful maintenance approach in inflammatory acne with
adapalene gel 0.1% after an initial treatment in combination with clindamycin topical solution 1%
56
or after monotherapy with clindamycin topical solution 1%. The Journal of dermatological
treatment. 2004;15; 372-378.
[235] Alirezai M, George SA, Coutts I, Roseeuw DI, Hachem JP, Kerrouche N, et al. Daily treatment
with adapalene gel 0.1% maintains initial improvement of acne vulgaris previously treated with
oral lymecycline. Eur J Dermatol. 2007;17; 45-51.
[236] Graupe K, Cunliffe WJ, Gollnick HP, Zaumseil RP. Efficacy and safety of topical azelaic acid (20
percent cream): an overview of results from European clinical trials and experimental reports.
Cutis. 1996;57; 20-35.
[237] Goltz RW, Coryell GM, Schnieders JR, Neidert GL. A comparison of Cleocin T 1 percent solution
and Cleocin T 1 percent lotion in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Cutis. 1985;36; 265-268.
[238] Parker F. A comparison of clindamycin 1% solution versus clindamycin 1% gel in the treatment
of acne vulgaris. Int J Dermatol. 1987;26; 121-122.
[239] Leyden JJ, Shalita AR, Saatjian GD, Sefton J. Erythromycin 2% gel in comparison with
clindamycin phosphate 1% solution in acne vulgaris. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1987;16; 822-827.
[240] Mills OH, Berger RS, Kligman AM, McElroy JA, Di Matteo J. A comparative study of
Erycette(TM) vs Cleocin-T(TM). Adv Ther. 1992;9; 14-20.
[241] Thomas DR, Raimer S, Smith EB. Comparison of topical erythromycin 1.5 percent solution
versus topical clindamycin phosphate 1.0 percent solution in the treatment of acne vulgaris.
Cutis. 1982;29; 624-625, 628-632.
[242] Shahlita AR, Smith EB, Bauer E. Topical erythromycin v clindamycin therapy for acne. A
multicenter, double-blind comparison. Arch Dermatol. 1984;120; 351-355.
[243] Plewig G, Holland KT, Nenoff P. Clinical and bacteriological evaluation of nadifloxacin 1% cream
in patients with acne vulgaris: a double-blind, phase III comparison study versus erythromycin
2% cream. Eur J Dermatol. 2006;16; 48-55.
[244] Patel VB, Misra AN, Marfatia YS. Preparation and comparative clinical evaluation of liposomal
gel of benzoyl peroxide for acne. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2001;27; 863-869.
[245] Cunliffe WJ, Holland KT. The effect of benzoyl peroxide on acne. Acta Derm Venereol. 1981;61;
267-269.
[246] Fyrand O, Jakobsen HB. Water-based versus alcohol-based benzoyl peroxide preparations in
the treatment of acne vulgaris. Dermatologica. 1986;172; 263-267.
[247] Patel VB, Misra A, Marfatia YS. Topical liposomal gel of tretinoin for the treatment of acne:
research and clinical implications. Pharm Dev Technol. 2000;5; 455-464.
[248] Schafer-Korting M, Korting HC, Ponce-Poschl E. Liposomal tretinoin for uncomplicated acne
vulgaris. Clin Investig. 1994;72; 1086-1091.
[249] Berger R, Rizer R, Barba A, Wilson D, Stewart D, Grossman R, et al. Tretinoin gel microspheres
0.04% versus 0.1% in adolescents and adults with mild to moderate acne vulgaris: a 12-week,
multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, phase IV trial. Clin Ther. 2007;29; 10861097.
[250] Thiboutot D, Jarratt M, Rich P, Rist T, Rodriguez D, Levy S. A randomized, parallel, vehiclecontrolled comparison of two erythromycin/benzoyl peroxide preparations for acne vulgaris. Clin
Ther. 2002;24; 773-785.
[251] Schachner L, Eaglstein W, Kittles C, Mertz P. Topical erythromycin and zinc therapy for acne. J
[252] Dhawan SS. Comparison of 2 clindamycin 1%-benzoyl peroxide 5% topical gels used once daily
in the management of acne vulgaris. Cutis. 2009;83; 265-272.
[253] Kircik L. Community-based trial results of combination clindamycin 1%--benzoyl peroxide 5%
topical gel plus tretinoin microsphere gel 0.04% or 0.1% or adapalene gel 0.1% in the treatment
of moderate to severe acne. Cutis. 2007;80; 10-14.
[254] Kircik LH. Comparative efficacy and safety results of two topical combination acne regimens. J
Drugs Dermatol. 2009;8; 624-630.
[255] Cunliffe WJ, Fernandez C, Bojar R, Kanis R, West F. An observer-blind parallel-group,
randomized, multicentre clinical and microbiological study of a topical clindamycin/zinc gel and a
topical clindamycin lotion in patients with mild/moderate acne. The Journal of dermatological
treatment. 2005;16; 213-218.
[256] Del Rosso J. Study results of benzoyl peroxide 5%/clindamycin J Drugs Dermatol. 2007;6; 616622.
[257] Shalita AR, Rafal ES, Anderson DN, Yavel R, Landow S, Lee WL. Compared efficacy and safety
of tretinoin 0.1% microsphere gel alone and in combination with benzoyl peroxide 6% cleanser
for the treatment of acne vulgaris. Cutis. 2003;72; 167-172.
57
[258] Wolf JE, Jr., Kaplan D, Kraus SJ, Loven KH, Rist T, Swinyer LJ, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of
combined topical treatment of acne vulgaris with adapalene and clindamycin: a multicenter,
randomized, investigator-blinded study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003;49; S211-217.
[259] NilFroushzadeh MA, Siadat AH, Baradaran EH, Moradi S. Clindamycin lotion alone versus
combination lotion of clindamycin phosphate plus tretinoin versus combination lotion of
clindamycin phosphate plus salicylic acid in the topical treatment of mild to moderate acne
vulgaris: a randomized control trial. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2009;75; 279-282.
[260] Cambazard F. Clinical efficacy of Velac, a new tretinoin and clindamycin phosphate gel in acne
vulgaris. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 1998;11 Suppl 1; S20-27; discussion S28-29.
[261] Zouboulis CC, Derumeaux L, Decroix J, Maciejewska-Udziela B, Cambazard F, Stuhlert A. A
multicentre, single-blind, randomized comparison of a fixed clindamycin phosphate/tretinoin gel
formulation (Velac) applied once daily and a clindamycin lotion formulation (Dalacin T) applied
twice daily in the topical treatment of acne vulgaris. Br J Dermatol. 2000;143; 498-505.
[262] Richter JR, Forstrom LR, Kiistala UO, Jung EG. Efficacy of the fixed 1.2% clindamycin
phosphate, 0.025% tretinoin gel formulation (Velac) and a proprietary 0.025% tretinoin gel
formulation (Aberela) in the topical control of facial acne. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol.
1998;11; 227-233.
[263] Ko HC, Song M, Seo SH, Oh CK, Kwon KS, Kim MB. Prospective, open-label, comparative study
of clindamycin 1%/benzoyl peroxide 5% gel with adapalene 0.1% gel in Asian acne patients:
efficacy and tolerability. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2009;23; 245-250.
[264] Langner A, Chu A, Goulden V, Ambroziak M. A randomized, single-blind comparison of topical
clindamycin + benzoyl peroxide and adapalene in the treatment of mild to moderate facial acne
vulgaris. Br J Dermatol. 2008;158; 122-129.
[265] Gupta AK, Lynde CW, Kunynetz RA, Amin S, Choi K, Goldstein E. A randomized, double-blind,
multicenter, parallel group study to compare relative efficacies of the topical gels 3%
erythromycin/5% benzoyl peroxide and 0.025% tretinoin/erythromycin 4% in the treatment of
moderate acne vulgaris of the face. J Cutan Med Surg. 2003;7; 31-37.
[266] Marazzi P, Boorman GC, Donald AE, Davies HD. Clinical evaluation of Double Strength Isotrexin
versus Benzamycin in the topical treatment of mild to moderate acne vulgaris. The Journal of
dermatological treatment. 2002;13; 111-117.
[267] Chu A, Huber FJ, Plott RT. The comparative efficacy of benzoyl peroxide 5%/erythromycin 3%
gel and erythromycin 4%/zinc 1.2% solution in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Br J Dermatol.
1997;136; 235-238.
[268] Packman AM, Brown RH, Dunlap FE, Kraus SJ, Webster GF. Treatment of acne vulgaris:
combination of 3% erythromycin and 5% benzoyl peroxide in a gel compared to clindamycin
phosphate lotion. Int J Dermatol. 1996;35; 209-211.
[269] Schachner L, Pestana A, Kittles C. A clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of a topical
erythromycin-zinc formulation with a topical clindamycin formulation. J Am Acad Dermatol.
1990;22; 489-495.
[270] Bowman S, Gold M, Nasir A, Vamvakias G. Comparison of clindamycin/benzoyl peroxide,
tretinoin plus clindamycin, and the combination of clindamycin/benzoyl peroxide and tretinoin
plus clindamycin in the treatment of acne vulgaris: a randomized, blinded study. J Drugs
Dermatol. 2005;4; 611-618.
[271] Langner A, Sheehan-Dare R, Layton A. A randomized, single-blind comparison of topical
clindamycin + benzoyl peroxide (Duac) and erythromycin + zinc acetate (Zineryt) in the treatment
of mild to moderate facial acne vulgaris. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2007;21; 311-319.
[272] Christian GL, Krueger GG. Clindamycin vs placebo as adjunctive therapy in moderately severe
acne. Arch Dermatol. 1975;111; 997-1000.
[273] Plewig G, Petrozzi JW, Berendes U. Double-blind study of doxycycline in acne vulgaris. Arch
Dermatol. 1970;101; 435-438.
[274] Fleischer AB, Jr., Dinehart S, Stough D, Plott RT. Safety and efficacy of a new extended-release
formulation of minocycline. Cutis. 2006;78; 21-31.
[275] Olafsson JH, Gudgeirsson J, Eggertsdottir GE, Kristjansson F. Doxycycline versus minocycline
in the treatment of acne vulgaris: A double-blind study. Journal of Dermatological Treatment.
1989;1; 15-17.
[276] Cunliffe WJ, Grosshans E, Belaich S, Meynadier J, Alirezai M, Thomas L. A comparison of the
efficacy and safety of lymecycline and minocycline in patients with moderately severe acne
vulgaris. Eur J Dermatol. 1998;8; 161-166.
58
[277] Bossuyt L, Bosschaert J, Richert B, Cromphaut P, Mitchell T, Al Abadie M, et al. Lymecycline in

the treatment of acne: an efficacious, safe and cost-effective alternative to minocycline. Eur J
Dermatol. 2003;13; 130-135.
[278] Cullen SI, Cohan RH. Minocycline therapy in acne vulgaris. Cutis. 1976;17; 1208-1210, 1214.
[279] Ruping KW, Tronnier H. Acne therapy: Results of a multicentre study with minocyline. Royal
Society of Medicine Services International Congress and Symposium Series. 1985; 109-119.
[280] Dreno B, Amblard P, Agache P, Sirot S, Litoux P. Low doses of zinc gluconate for inflammatory
acne. Acta Derm Venereol. 1989;69; 541-543.
[281] Orris L, Shalita AR, Sibulkin D, London SJ, Gans EH. Oral zinc therapy of acne. Absorption and
clinical effect. Arch Dermatol. 1978;114; 1018-1020.
[282] Weimar VM, Puhl SC, Smith WH, tenBroeke JE. Zinc sulfate in acne vulgaris. Arch Dermatol.
1978;114; 1776-1778.
[283] Vena GA. Comparison of two different dosing regimens with lymecycline, in association with
adapalene, in inflammatory acne. European Journal of Inflammation. 2005;3; 89-95.
[284] Leyden J, Shalita A, Hordinsky M, Swinyer L, Stanczyk FZ, Weber ME. Efficacy of a low-dose
oral contraceptive containing 20 microg of ethinyl estradiol and 100 microg of levonorgestrel for
the treatment of moderate acne: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Am Acad Dermatol.
2002;47; 399-409.
[285] Thiboutot D, Archer DF, Lemay A, Washenik K, Roberts J, Harrison DD. A randomized,
controlled trial of a low-dose contraceptive containing 20 microg of ethinyl estradiol and 100
microg of levonorgestrel for acne treatment. Fertil Steril. 2001;76; 461-468.
[286] Lucky AW, Henderson TA, Olson WH, Robisch DM, Lebwohl M, Swinyer LJ. Effectiveness of
norgestimate and ethinyl estradiol in treating moderate acne vulgaris. J Am Acad Dermatol.
1997;37; 746-754.
[287] Redmond GP, Olson WH, Lippman JS, Kafrissen ME, Jones TM, Jorizzo JL. Norgestimate and
ethinyl estradiol in the treatment of acne vulgaris: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Obstet
Gynecol. 1997;89; 615-622.
[288] Plewig G, Cunliffe WJ, Binder N, Hoschen K. Efficacy of an oral contraceptive containing EE
0.03 mg and CMA 2 mg (Belara) in moderate acne resolution: a randomized, double-blind,
placebo-controlled Phase III trial. Contraception. 2009;80; 25-33.
[289] Koltun W, Lucky AW, Thiboutot D, Niknian M, Sampson-Landers C, Korner P, et al. Efficacy and
safety of 3 mg drospirenone/20 mcg ethinylestradiol oral contraceptive administered in 24/4
regimen in the treatment of acne vulgaris: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Contraception. 2008;77; 249-256.
[290] Maloney JM, Dietze P, Jr., Watson D, Niknian M, Lee-Rugh S, Sampson-Landers C, et al.
Treatment of acne using a 3-milligram drospirenone/20-microgram ethinyl estradiol oral
contraceptive administered in a 24/4 regimen: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol.
2008;112; 773-781.
[291] Fugere P, Percival-Smith RK, Lussier-Cacan S, Davignon J, Farquhar D. Cyproterone
acetate/ethinyl estradiol in the treatment of acne. A comparative dose-response study of the
estrogen component. Contraception. 1990;42; 225-234.
[292] Halbe HW, de Melo NR, Bahamondes L, Petracco A, Lemgruber M, de Andrade RP, et al.
Efficacy and acceptability of two monophasic oral contraceptives containing ethinylestradiol and
either desogestrel or gestodene. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 1998;3; 113-120.
[293] Koetsawang S, Charoenvisal C, Banharnsupawat L, Singhakovin S, Kaewsuk O, Punnahitanont
S. Multicenter trial of two monophasic oral contraceptives containing 30 mcg ethinylestradiol and
either desogestrel or gestodene in Thai women. Contraception. 1995;51; 225-229.
[294] Mango D, Ricci S, Manna P, Miggiano GA, Serra GB. Clinical and hormonal effects of
ethinylestradiol combined with gestodene and desogestrel in young women with acne vulgaris.
Contraception. 1996;53; 163-170.
[295] Graupe K, Zaumseil RP. Skinoren - a new local therapeutic agent for the treatment of acne
vulgaris. In: Macher E, Kolde G, Brcker EB, editors. Jahrbuch der Dermatologie. Zlpich.
Biermann, 1991. 159-169.
[296] Stoughton RB, Resh W. Topical clindamycin in the control of acne vulgaris. Cutis. 1976;17; 551554.
[297] Padilla RS, McCabe JM, Becker LE. Topical tetracycline hydrochloride vs. topical clindamycin
phosphate in the treatment of acne: a comparative study. Int J Dermatol. 1981;20; 445-448.
[298] Robledo AA, Lopez BE, del Pino GJ, Sambricio GF, Rodriguez PA, Sotillo G, et al. Multicentric
comparative study of the efficacy and tolerance of clindamycin phosphate 1% topical solution
59
and tetracycline topical solution for the treatment of acne vulgaris. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp.
1988;43; 21-26.
[299] Yong CC. Benzoyl peroxide gel therapy in acne in Singapore. Int J Dermatol. 1979;18; 485-488.
[300] Strauss JS, Stranieri AM. Acne treatment with topical erythromycin and zinc: effect of
Propionibacterium acnes and free fatty acid composition. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1984;11; 86-89.
[301] Wiegell SR, Wulf HC. Photodynamic therapy of acne vulgaris using 5-aminolevulinic acid versus
methyl aminolevulinate. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54; 647-651.
[302] Skidmore R, Kovach R, Walker C, Thomas J, Bradshaw M, Leyden J, et al. Effects of
subantimicrobial-dose doxycycline in the treatment of moderate acne. Arch Dermatol. 2003;139;
459-464.
[303] Dubertret L, Alirezai M, Rostain G, Lahfa M, Forsea D, Niculae BD, et al. The use of lymecycline
in the treatment of moderate to severe acne vulgaris: a comparison of the efficacy and safety of
two dosing regimens. Eur J Dermatol. 2003;13; 44-48.
[304] Stewart DM, Torok HM, Weiss JS, Plott RT. Dose-ranging efficacy of new once-daily extendedrelease minocycline for acne vulgaris. Cutis. 2006;78; 11-20.
[305] Hersle K, Gisslen H. Minocycline in acne vulgaris: a double-blind study. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp.
1976;19; 339-342.
[306] Lane P, Williamson DM. Treatment of acne vulgaris with tetracycline hydrochloride: a doubleblind trial with 51 patients. Br Med J. 1969;2; 76-79.
[307] Stewart WD, Maddin S, Nelson AJ, Danto JL. Therapeutic Agents in Acne Vulgaris. I.
Tetracycline. Can Med Assoc J. 1963;89; 1096-1097.
[308] Wong RC, Kang S, Heezen JL, Voorhees JJ, Ellis CN. Oral ibuprofen and tetracycline for the
treatment of acne vulgaris. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1984;11; 1076-1081.
[309] Toossi P, Farshchian M, Malekzad F, Mohtasham N, Kimyai-Asadi A. Subantimicrobial-dose
doxycycline in the treatment of moderate facial acne. J Drugs Dermatol. 2008;7; 1149-1152.
[310] Bleeker J, Hellgren L, Vincent J. Effect of systemic erythromycin stearate on the inflammatory
lesions and skin surface fatty acids in acne vulgaris. Dermatologica. 1981;162; 342-349.
[311] Bleeker J. Tolerance and efficacy of erythromycin stearate tablets versus enteric-coated
erythromycin base capsules in the treatment of patients with acne vulgaris. J Int Med Res.
1983;11; 38-41.
[312] Pierard-Franchimont C, Goffin V, Arrese JE, Martalo O, Braham C, Slachmuylders P, et al.
Lymecycline and minocycline in inflammatory acne: a randomized, double-blind intent-to-treat
study on clinical and in vivo antibacterial efficacy. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol. 2002;15;
112-119.
[313] Hubbell CG, Hobbs ER, Rist T, White JW, Jr. Efficacy of minocycline compared with tetracycline
in treatment of acne vulgaris. Arch Dermatol. 1982;118; 989-992.
[314] Khanna N. Treatment of acne vulgaris with oral tetracyclines. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol.
1993;29; 74-76.
[315] Samuelson JS. An accurate photographic method for grading acne: initial use in a double-blind
clinical comparison of minocycline and tetracycline. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1985;12; 461-467.
[316] Akman A, Durusoy C, Senturk M, Koc CK, Soyturk D, Alpsoy E. Treatment of acne with
intermittent and conventional isotretinoin: a randomized, controlled multicenter study. Arch
Dermatol Res. 2007;299; 467-473.
[317] Kapadia N. Comparative efficacy and safety and efficacy of systemic 13-cis retinoic acid
20mg/day vs 40mg/day in acne vulgaris. Journal of Pakistan Association of Dermatologists.
2005;15; 238-241.
[318] Hillstrom L, Pettersson L, Hellbe L, Kjellin A, Leczinsky CG, Nordwall C. Comparison of oral
treatment with zinc sulphate and placebo in acne vulgaris. Br J Dermatol. 1977;97; 681-684.
[319] Gransson K, Liden S, Odsell L. Oral zinc in acne vulgaris: a clinical and methodological study.
Acta Derm Venereol. 1978;58; 443-448.
[320] Liden S, Goransson K, Odsell L. Clinical evaluation in acne. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh).
1980;Suppl 89; 47-52.
[321] Verma KC, Saini AS, Dhamija SK. Oral zinc sulphate therapy in acne vulgaris: a double-blind
trial. Acta Derm Venereol. 1980;60; 337-340.
[322] Weismann K, Wadskov S, Sondergaard J. Oral zinc sulphate therapy for acne vulgaris. Acta
Derm Venereol. 1977;57; 357-360.
[323] Harrison PV. A comparison of doxycycline and minocycline in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Clin
Exp Dermatol. 1988;13; 242-244.
60
[324] Burton J. A placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy of topical tetracycline and oral
tetracycline in the treatment of mild to moderate acne. Dermatology Research Group. J Int Med
Res. 1990;18; 94-103.
[325] Palombo-Kinne E, Schellschmidt I, Schumacher U, Graser T. Efficacy of a combined oral
contraceptive containing 0.030 mg ethinylestradiol/2 mg dienogest for the treatment of
papulopustular acne in comparison with placebo and 0.035 mg ethinylestradiol/2 mg cyproterone
acetate. Contraception. 2009;79; 282-289.
[326] Gruber DM, Sator MO, Joura EA, Kokoschka EM, Heinze G, Huber JC. Topical cyproterone
acetate treatment in women with acne: a placebo-controlled trial. Arch Dermatol. 1998;134; 459463.
[327] Katz HI, Kempers S, Akin MD, Dunlap F, Whiting D, Norbart TC. Effect of a desogestrelcontaining oral contraceptive on the skin. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2000;5; 248255.
[328] Kranzlin HT, Nap MA. The effect of a phasic oral contraceptive containing Desogestrel on
seborrhea and acne. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2006;11; 6-13.
[329] Colver GB, Mortimer PS, Dawber RP. Cyproterone acetate and two doses of oestrogen in female
acne; a double-blind comparison. Br J Dermatol. 1988;118; 95-99.
[330] Miller JA, Wojnarowska FT, Dowd PM, Ashton RE, O'Brien TJ, Griffiths WA, et al. Anti-androgen
treatment in women with acne: a controlled trial. Br J Dermatol. 1986;114; 705-716.
[331] Hongcharu W, Taylor CR, Chang Y, Aghassi D, Suthamjariya K, Anderson RR. Topical ALAphotodynamic therapy for the treatment of acne vulgaris. J Invest Dermatol. 2000;115; 183-192.
[332] Horfelt C, Stenquist B, Halldin CB, Ericson MB, Wennberg AM. Single low-dose red light is as
efficacious as methyl-aminolevulinate--photodynamic therapy for treatment of acne: clinical
assessment and fluorescence monitoring. Acta Derm Venereol. 2009;89; 372-378.
[333] Horfelt C, Funk J, Frohm-Nilsson M, Wiegleb Edstrom D, Wennberg AM. Topical methyl
aminolaevulinate photodynamic therapy for treatment of facial acne vulgaris: results of a
randomized, controlled study. Br J Dermatol. 2006;155; 608-613.
[334] Na JI, Suh DH. Red light phototherapy alone is effective for acne vulgaris: randomized, singleblinded clinical trial. Dermatol Surg. 2007;33; 1228-1233; discussion 1233.
[335] Pollock B, Turner D, Stringer MR, Bojar RA, Goulden V, Stables GI, et al. Topical
aminolaevulinic acid-photodynamic therapy for the treatment of acne vulgaris: a study of clinical
efficacy and mechanism of action. Br J Dermatol. 2004;151; 616-622.
[336] Gold MH, Rao J, Goldman MP, Bridges TM, Bradshaw VL, Boring MM, et al. A multicenter
clinical evaluation of the treatment of mild to moderate inflammatory acne vulgaris of the face
with visible blue light in comparison to topical 1% clindamycin antibiotic solution. J Drugs
Dermatol. 2005;4; 64-70.
[337] Sami NA, Attia AT, Badawi AM. Phototherapy in the treatment of acne vulgaris. J Drugs
Dermatol. 2008;7; 627-632.
[338] Haedersdal M, Togsverd-Bo K, Wiegell SR, Wulf HC. Long-pulsed dye laser versus long-pulsed
dye laser-assisted photodynamic therapy for acne vulgaris: A randomized controlled trial. J Am
Acad Dermatol. 2008;58; 387-394.
[339] Jung JY, Choi YS, Yoon MY, Min SU, Suh DH. Comparison of a pulsed dye laser and a
combined 585/1,064-nm laser in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Dermatol Surg. 2009;35; 11811187.
[340] Leheta TM. Role of the 585-nm pulsed dye laser in the treatment of acne in comparison with
other topical therapeutic modalities. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2009;11; 118-124.
[341] Orringer JS, Kang S, Hamilton T, Schumacher W, Cho S, Hammerberg C, et al. Treatment of
acne vulgaris with a pulsed dye laser: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;291; 28342839.
[342] Seaton ED, Charakida A, Mouser PE, Grace I, Clement RM, Chu AC. Pulsed-dye laser treatment
for inflammatory acne vulgaris: randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2003;362; 1347-1352.
[343] Bowes LE, Manstein D, Rox Andersen R. Effects of 532 nm KTP laser exposure on acne and
sebaceous glands. Lasers Med Sci. 2003;18; S6-7.
[344] Baugh WP, Kucaba WD. Nonablative phototherapy for acne vulgaris using the KTP 532 nm
laser. Dermatol Surg. 2005;31; 1290-1296.
[345] Oh SH, Ryu DJ, Han EC, Lee KH, Lee JH. A comparative study of topical 5-aminolevulinic acid
incubation times in photodynamic therapy with intense pulsed light for the treatment of
inflammatory acne. Dermatol Surg. 2009;35; 1918-1926.
61
[346] Rojanamatin J, Choawawanich P. Treatment of inflammatory facial acne vulgaris with intense
pulsed light and short contact of topical 5-aminolevulinic acid: a pilot study. Dermatol Surg.
2006;32; 991-996; discussion 996-997.
[347] Santos MA, Belo VG, Santos G. Effectiveness of photodynamic therapy with topical 5aminolevulinic acid and intense pulsed light versus intense pulsed light alone in the treatment of
acne vulgaris: comparative study. Dermatol Surg. 2005;31; 910-915.
[348] Paithankar DY, Ross EV, Saleh BA, Blair MA, Graham BS. Acne treatment with a 1,450 nm
wavelength laser and cryogen spray cooling. Lasers Surg Med. 2002;31; 106-114.
[349] Uebelhoer NS, Bogle MA, Dover JS, Arndt KA, Rohrer TE. Comparison of stacked pulses versus
double-pass treatments of facial acne with a 1,450-nm laser. Dermatol Surg. 2007;33; 552-559.
[350] Wang SQ, Counters JT, Flor ME, Zelickson BD. Treatment of inflammatory facial acne with the
1,450 nm diode laser alone versus microdermabrasion plus the 1,450 nm laser: a randomized,
split-face trial. Dermatol Surg. 2006;32; 249-255; discussion 255.
[351] Orringer JS, Kang S, Maier L, Johnson TM, Sachs DL, Karimipour DJ, et al. A randomized,
controlled, split-face clinical trial of 1320-nm Nd:YAG laser therapy in the treatment of acne
vulgaris. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;56; 432-438.
[352] Orringer JS, Sachs DL, Bailey E, Kang S, Hamilton T, Voorhees JJ. Photodynamic therapy for
acne vulgaris: a randomized, controlled, split-face clinical trial of topical aminolevulinic acid and
pulsed dye laser therapy. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2010;9; 28-34.
[353] Wiegell SR, Wulf HC. Photodynamic therapy of acne vulgaris using methyl aminolaevulinate: a
blinded, randomized, controlled trial. Br J Dermatol. 2006;154; 969-976.
[354] Horfelt C, Stenquist B, Larko O, Faergemann J, Wennberg AM. Photodynamic therapy for acne
vulgaris: a pilot study of the dose-response and mechanism of action. Acta Derm Venereol.
2007;87; 325-329.
[355] Thorneycroft IH, Stanczyk FZ, Bradshaw KD, Ballagh SA, Nichols M, Weber ME. Effect of lowdose oral contraceptives on androgenic markers and acne. Contraception. 1999;60; 255-262.
62

Guideline On The Treatment of Acne

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Guideline On The Treatment of Acne

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Guideline on the Treatment of Acne

Developed by the Guideline Subcommittee Acne of the

Dr. Cristina Oprica, Stockholm (Sweden)

Members of EDF Guideline Committee:

Prof. Dr. Hans-Christian Korting, Munich (Germany)

Chairman of EDF Guideline Committee:

EDF Guidelines Secretariat to Prof. Sterry:

European evidence based (S3)

Guidelines for the treatment of acne

Notes on use of guidelines...................................................................................................... 5

Objectives of the guideline ...................................................................................................... 5

Target population .................................................................................................................... 6

Pharmacoeconomic considerations ........................................................................................ 6

Considerations with respect to vehicle for topical treatments................................................. 6

Considerations with respect to body area............................................................................... 6

1.7 Clinical features and variants .................................................................................................. 7

Assessment, comparability of treatment outcomes ................................................................. 9

Nomination of expert group/ patient involvement.................................................................. 13

Selection of included medications/ interventions .................................................................. 13

3.3 Generation of evidence for efficacy, safety and patient preference...................................... 13

Epidemiology and pathophysiology ......................................................................................... 17

Therapeutic options ................................................................................................................... 19

Summary of therapeutic recommendations .......................................................................... 19

Treatment of comedonal acne................................................................................................... 21

Recommendations for comedonal acne ............................................................................... 21

6.2 Reasoning ............................................................................................................................. 21

Treatment of papulopustular acne............................................................................................ 26

Treatment nodular/ conglobate acne........................................................................................ 37

8.2 Reasoning ............................................................................................................................. 37

Considerations on isotretinoin and dosage........................................................................... 41

Oral isotretinoin considerations with respect to EMEA directive........................................... 42

Consideration on isotretinoin and the risk of depression ...................................................... 43

Risk of antibiotic resistance................................................................................................... 43

Maintenance therapy .................................................................................................................. 45

adverse drug reaction

1.1 Notes on use of guidelines

1.2 Objectives of the guideline

Reduction of antibiotic resistance

1.3 Target population

1.4 Pharmacoeconomic considerations

1.5 Considerations with respect to vehicle for topical treatments

1.6 Considerations with respect to body area

1.7 Clinical features and variants

1.7.1 Comedonal acne

1.7.2 Papulopustular acne

1.7.3 Nodular/ conglobate acne

1.7.4 Other acne variants

2 Assessment, comparability of treatment outcomes

2.1 Acne grading

2.1.1 Acne grading systems

subjective task, based on observing dominant lesions, evaluating the presence or

Pillsbury 1956 [18]

Cook 1979 [17]

Lehmann 2002 [7]

Layton 2010 [22]

FDAs IGA for

2.1.1.3 Quality of life methods

2.2 Prognostic factors that should influence treatment choice

2.2.2 The influence of the assessment of scarring/ potential for scarring

3.1 Nomination of expert group/ patient involvement

3.2 Selection of included medications/ interventions

3.3 Generation of evidence for efficacy, safety and patient

3.3.2 Extrapolation of evidence for specific acne types